Umm...???

chcr said:
Don't waste your breath BoP.
Click to expand...

Yeesh, I don't know why I keep getting sucked into these debates. Oh yeah, I remember now... it's so I can distract 'em whilst I steal their pants. :devious:


*runs off with RDX' pants* :lloyd:
 
:) I will press on, with or without pants. Geez, I'm feeling a little like gonz here, fighting deep in right wing territory against overwhelming odds...

As far as carbon dating goes:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_geology.asp

That's kind of a dumbed down explanation, but here's a better one:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Here's some K-Ar dating analysis.

http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm

If you are interested in more sites, I could give you more...
 
It's one way to stay temporarily entertained between bouts of heavy sex. After 21 years, that gap seens to be widening... :shrug:
 
Gonz said:
It's one way to stay temporarily entertained between bouts of heavy sex. After 21 years, that gap seens to be widening... :shrug:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which part of that statement is more open to being taken out of context, the "heavy" psrt or the "gap seems to be widening" part. :D
 
OK, if you don't like Steve Austin's work, ignore that article, here's another along the same line:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Varves

Like I said, I have MANY more studies and papers that I can show you if you want more proof. I don't think you will be able to pick them apart.

The "fact" that the earth is billions of years old is not a clear cut fact...

I thought ti was proven that most dinosaur if not all fossils were billions of years not thousands
Click to expand...

as some would like it to be.
 
Exactly...

As I had previously said,

By the same token though, if all scientific evidence is examined, there are some very large problems that confront both creation theories and evolution theories. The evidence clearly does not overwhelmingly point to one over the other, and I don't think it ever will.
Click to expand...

But a person here did not have that viewpoint; so I'm merely trying to point out that this is not a clear-cut matter.
 
pretty much the idea of the age of things. the age of the fossils. He presented them as facts. thus I put it as facts.
 
freako104 said:
pretty much the idea of the age of things. the age of the fossils. He presented them as facts. thus I put it as facts.
Click to expand...

Facts assumes credible scientific evidence that simply does not exist.
 
He did present something for it. Scientific value of it I do question but he did have something there.
 
Gonz said:
You made a judgement. Yet you think other people shouldn't judge. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are or why they occured. You are a hypocrite. It was pointed out & you still don't see it.

EZ definition: Hypocrite-One who says one thing & does another.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between judging & having an opinion. Maybe that's where you're going wrong....
 
RDX said:
For lack of any other all-inclusive theory of origin, I would say yes. Until scientists present a reasonable theory that can explain all the basic elements of origin, a theory that involves a deity is the only theory that I see as being plausible.
Click to expand...

You can believe what you want, however I must object to your use of the word "theory". To qualify as a valid "theory", an idea/belief/proposal must be able to be demonstrated to be either wrong or right, or it must be able to be shown that the theory could be disproved given certain evidence.

NOTE that this says nothing about the factuality of the theory, but merely whether or not it qualifies as a theory.

Further:
A "Theory" must be:
• in theory and principle refutable or able to be proven wrong. In other words, a factual claim has to be "testable" and "provable." It can not be speculative or based on "gut instinct." For science, the definition of a fact relies on whether it is observable, measurable, able to be repeated or duplicated in a controlled test situation, and thus provable;

• logical and do not carry internal contradictions;

• objective and not subjective and can be seen by non-involved unbiased observers;

• sometimes inferred (guessed at) from observable phenomena;

• NEVER circular arguments (which uses the conclusion to explain away counter-evidence) in which a person might assert "I am the one and only Super person and no one else can be the Super person because the Super person is me" or "What is good for society is what is good for me."

• NEVER vague or ill-defined or unlimited.

Evolution is a theory (right or wrong). The Big Bang Theory is a theory (right or wrong). Creationism is not a theory (right or wrong) because it excuses itself from scientific analysis and provides only circular answers - "he can because he's God & is all powerful, & it's obvious that he's all-powerful because he can do all this".

So kindly refrain from using the word "theory". It is a scientific term and until you abide by the conditions of Science, Creationsim has no right to use that term.
 
RDX said:
That's just it though, there are no other alternatives. Physicists have tried it over and over again. If you change any of the fundamental laws whether it is the electroweak force or the strong guage force, atoms cannot form, molecules cannot form...of any sort. We are left with a giant soup of fundamental matter, that cannot combine to form "new species" of building blocks. We are in the only universe that can support life form, or any complex molecules for that matter.
Click to expand...

The main thing you're overlooking is the simple fact that it only has to happen once for us to observe it. It may well be true that the odds are infintessimally small, but then there's every suggestion that the universe has been here for an inordinate amount of time - our universe has existed for only 15 billion years but who's to say that there weren't trillions of Big Bangs preceeding this one, each one with something out of place that meant that the whole big shambles collapsed back on top of itself, as suggested would happen by your probabilities? We make the mistake of assuming that it happen smack perfect the first time. Life on Earth is another example - we can see the evidence of the perfect combination of factors on Earth because we can look at every other planet we know of and observe that we're one in a billion. The chances may be one in 10 ^40000, but with 10^400000 planets (or more) there's every chance that one will show up with life - and the inhabitants of that planet will not be able to help but be the ones to observe that magical combination of factors.

If there was life on every planet, and every planet magically had the right factors, etc, then yes there would be something extremely fishy going on - you would have to suspect a designer tailoring each planet to match its cosmological requirements. The fact that the evolution of life is so improbable is precisely what makes it so much more likely that we developed by chance, rather than by design.
 
Evolution can never be demonstrated to be correct, only incorrect. In the same way creationism can only be demonstrated to be incorrect, never correct. As long as one clearly defines the parameters of the THEORY he proposed, it can be demonstrated to be incorrect, but never correct. Even after a theory has repeatedly given correct predictions and measurements, it can still not be concluded to be absolutely true.

Take Newtonian physics for example, they proved to be remarkably accurate and very consistent. After years of testing and utilizing them in everyday simulations, they were assumed to be correct. They became known as laws. However, Einsteinian physics can along and disproved Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics are still useful for estimating objects motion in everyday circumstances, but the Einsteinian physics are more accurate. Thus, Newtonian physics were demonstrated to be incorrect. Are Einsteinian physics proven to be correct then? No, the only thing we can do is wait for this set of principles to be demonstrated to be incorrect, and assume them to be correct until that time.

Creationism does not exclude itself from science. I clearly define my definition of creationism as involving a young universe. If there is irrefutable evidence that contradicts this claim, then my theory is demonstrated to be false. Just like evolution though, creationism can never be proven absolutely correct, only incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top