Creationists

Status
Not open for further replies.
It takes faith for both sides to believe as they do when you can't prove what you believe that is faith.
Nonsense. Only for the faithful does "prove" require "proof" that is absolute and not to be questioned.

Only the intellectually disingenuous insist that if you don't possess the absolutely complete knowledge of everything, then you cannot make any claim of any degree of certainty in the knowledge of anything.

To use the term retards is very revealing about you.
I'm sure it does. I am just as sure that what you think it reveals about me, reveals a great deal about you.

Your side interprets evidence the same way but because they call it science you believe it.
This misrepresentation of fact should be considered a lie, if it is intentional.

Which, if you have any notion of what you're talking about, is necessarily true.

But, if you are so dissociated from understanding the real world that you have no idea what you're talking about, then perhaps you're a little retarded.

Maybe you just misspoke. Care to try again?

It's not real science if faith is required to believe such silly things.
Quite correct. Which is the precise point I'm making regarding the "science" involved in creationism.
 
Don't trust any dating method because pressuppositions are needed ,in other words they are biased because of ones view before the process begins.

But the different dating measures match each other (within known margins of error/discrepencies). Of course certain assumptions are made, but methods are adjusted when the assumptions prove wrong. Even the simplest of dating methods...that the digger you deep the older the layers are...show a much older earth than 6,000 years even without setting dates. And layers "out of order" are accounted for and can be detected.

The 6,000 year old earth theory was disproven well before Darwin.

Still not worthy to bet my life on it.

What evidence, exactly, would you accept?
 
But the different dating measures match each other (within known margins of error/discrepencies). Of course certain assumptions are made, but methods are adjusted when the assumptions prove wrong. Even the simplest of dating methods...that the digger you deep the older the layers are...show a much older earth than 6,000 years even without setting dates. And layers "out of order" are accounted for and can be detected.

The 6,000 year old earth theory was disproven well before Darwin.

Still not worthy to bet my life on it.

What evidence, exactly, would you accept?

Having a dream where a man with a white beard falls from the sky and just says a number.
 
But the different dating measures match each other (within known margins of error/discrepencies). Of course certain assumptions are made, but methods are adjusted when the assumptions prove wrong. Even the simplest of dating methods...that the digger you deep the older the layers are...show a much older earth than 6,000 years even without setting dates. And layers "out of order" are accounted for and can be detected.

The 6,000 year old earth theory was disproven well before Darwin.

Still not worthy to bet my life on it.

What evidence, exactly, would you accept?

There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.
 
No, you don't know EXACTLY how old it was. You know APPROXIMATELY how old it was.

And rock and earth aren't trees. The accuracy becomes less and less accurate the older things are.
 
No, you don't know EXACTLY how old it was. You know APPROXIMATELY how old it was.

And rock and earth aren't trees. The accuracy becomes less and less accurate the older things are.

We have agreement, it is less accurate that's why you see a larger range of years the older you get when science determines the age of things.
 
What evidence, exactly, would you accept?

There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.

I wasn't there for the birth of the tree, but when I cut it down I knew EXACTLY how old it was. Nice try, but absolutes have a way of making one look foolish!

Its ok, ive already had an extensive discussion with YWC about the topic of radiometric dating.

We've come to the conclusion that, in order for YWC to be correct, the laws of physics governing the structure of an atom must be radically different yet stable, something no one believes is possible.

Radiometric dates are controlled by the decay rates of certain isotopes, which are dependent on the forces within the nucleus of the atom, which of course are the basic constituents of everything we know.

To deny radiometric dating is to assume that the particles of the standard model had somehow acted differently in the past, which of course would prevent the formation of atoms. Ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
No shit. To cover your ass when you're wildly inaccurate.

Why does every creationist do this???

You think, for some reason, that because you caught him in a technical blunder about the difference between knowing for sure and having an estimation that somehow the entirety of modern science is wrong.

Funny creationist.
 
YWC, someone really needs to educate you on radiometric dating. Your statement about assumptions makes no sense in reference to most types of radioactive dating.

Potassium-argon dating only assumes that no argon is present in the initial sample, a perfectly reasonable assumption considering argon gas isnt going to be present in either rock strata or animal remains at the time of the samples formation. In other words, all argon must have originated from the potassium, and their amounts must be proportional.

The same can be said of lead dating.

Anyone that would deny the perfect overlap of several different dating methods that rely on very different assumptions is a ideological fool.
 
i do not trust dating methods and i gave many reasons why i don't trust them.
Is it because you're a loon?

Seeing the evidence is believing my friend.
This is funny coming from someone who refuses to acknowledge or remember any evidence on any scientific topic, to instead believe something that has no verifiable evidence whatsoever. If seeing is believing, I can't begin to imagine the kinds of visual hallucinations you must be having to believe the things you do.

This age is determined by counting the generations of biblical figures recorded throughout the Bible, starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden.
I see. So we know how long each generation lived for, correct? And this is still accurate even though our own lifespans have dramatically changed in the last 200 years?


Same could be said for both sides.

Human nature to interpret evidence to support our presuppositions.
That's true, it is human bias. That's precisely why we have the scientific method: to remove such biases by creating blinding and other methods. If you were actually a scientist in any capacity, you would have known that though. But this isn't the first topic you've been completely clueless about yet decided to add your opinion to.

Don't trust any dating method because pressuppositions are needed ,in other words they are biased because of ones view before the process begins.
No, you don't trust any dating method because it goes against your religion and you need to maintain your blind opinions. We've gone over why dating is valid and verifiable. Multiple times. You always continue to conveniently forget.

Ok I no longer take you serious ,it is very revealing when you use the term retard.
I think by "retard" he meant "guy with stroke who can't form new memories and frequently responds to the same post three times saying the same thing" so don't take it personally.

There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.
Really? I didn't know what was true. So if I saw a baby, it could really be a 40 year old dude trying to work the system? And if I cut down a tree the rings have no way whatsoever in giving me an approximate age? Why do doctors use that thing called bone age? How do forensic people determine time of death of bodies? How do we know how often to cut the grass if we can't tell time with respect to regular predictable natural properties?!

Good thing they have a "Sell By" date on your milk. You wouldn't know if it was still fresh and young if no one recorded it for you. :lol:
 
I wonder if people who claim to know definitively that the age of the earth is something other than what some other group claims it is, know how incredibly close minded and ignorant they sound?
Yeah, changing one's worldview to adapt to expanding reproducible evidence to create the most logical and verifiable conclusion is closed minded. If only I can be open minded and non-ignorant like you, whereas I can ignore all evidence on a topic to just believe what I want, regardless of conflicting information.

No, you don't know EXACTLY how old it was. You know APPROXIMATELY how old it was.

And rock and earth aren't trees. The accuracy becomes less and less accurate the older things are.
I see. If something is 1,000,000 years old but I'm off by a year or two, that's important in your world. Accuracy up to 0.00001% of the real value isn't good enough for you, thus we should completely abandon the idea that we can date anything! Yeah that makes sense. Totally open minded reasoning there. :lol::lol::lol:
 
i do not trust dating methods and i gave many reasons why i don't trust them.
Is it because you're a loon?

Seeing the evidence is believing my friend.
This is funny coming from someone who refuses to acknowledge or remember any evidence on any scientific topic, to instead believe something that has no verifiable evidence whatsoever. If seeing is believing, I can't begin to imagine the kinds of visual hallucinations you must be having to believe the things you do.


I see. So we know how long each generation lived for, correct? And this is still accurate even though our own lifespans have dramatically changed in the last 200 years?



That's true, it is human bias. That's precisely why we have the scientific method: to remove such biases by creating blinding and other methods. If you were actually a scientist in any capacity, you would have known that though. But this isn't the first topic you've been completely clueless about yet decided to add your opinion to.


No, you don't trust any dating method because it goes against your religion and you need to maintain your blind opinions. We've gone over why dating is valid and verifiable. Multiple times. You always continue to conveniently forget.

Ok I no longer take you serious ,it is very revealing when you use the term retard.
I think by "retard" he meant "guy with stroke who can't form new memories and frequently responds to the same post three times saying the same thing" so don't take it personally.

There is no accurate way to determine the age of an object unless someone was there to record it.
Really? I didn't know what was true. So if I saw a baby, it could really be a 40 year old dude trying to work the system? And if I cut down a tree the rings have no way whatsoever in giving me an approximate age? Why do doctors use that thing called bone age? How do forensic people determine time of death of bodies? How do we know how often to cut the grass if we can't tell time with respect to regular predictable natural properties?!

Good thing they have a "Sell By" date on your milk. You wouldn't know if it was still fresh and young if no one recorded it for you. :lol:

You compare a newborn child to the universe and call me a loon :lol:

So historians carry little weight with you.
 
Last edited:
YWC, someone really needs to educate you on radiometric dating. Your statement about assumptions makes no sense in reference to most types of radioactive dating.

Potassium-argon dating only assumes that no argon is present in the initial sample, a perfectly reasonable assumption considering argon gas isnt going to be present in either rock strata or animal remains at the time of the samples formation. In other words, all argon must have originated from the potassium, and their amounts must be proportional.

The same can be said of lead dating.

Anyone that would deny the perfect overlap of several different dating methods that rely on very different assumptions is a ideological fool.

I have a link just for you.

The Radiometric Dating Game
 
No shit. To cover your ass when you're wildly inaccurate.

Link to the science being "wildly innaccurate"?


And like with YWC I remind you a link to a Bible blog is a waste of time.

Just admit it you are willing to listen to the educated on your side but you're not willing to listen to the educated on the other side.

You guy's keep trying to argue how accurate your dating methods are and I am a loon for not trusting them. I offer you an explanation why and a site that points out the problems with them and you won't address the problems that are presented so you just close your eyes to the truth, it only hurts you.

But don't try and tell me how accurate the dating methods are it's been documented many times how inaccurate they are and why ?
 
No shit. To cover your ass when you're wildly inaccurate.

Link to the science being "wildly innaccurate"?


And like with YWC I remind you a link to a Bible blog is a waste of time.

Just admit it you are willing to listen to the educated on your side but you're not willing to listen to the educated on the other side.

You guy's keep trying to argue how accurate your dating methods are and I am a loon for not trusting them. I offer you an explanation why and a site that points out the problems with them and you won't address the problems that are presented so you just close your eyes to the truth, it only hurts you.

But don't try and tell me how accurate the dating methods are it's been documented many times how inaccurate they are and why ?

Nope I'm not picky, you can pick any scientific website. Doesn't have to be one of my choosing.

Anything but biased Bible blogs. You can give me a link to a science website, a link to a college's science department, your choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top