18 Feb 13
6 edits
Originally posted by OdBodI have a four letter word that does apply to that site.
I have one digit that might applied to that site!
I never cease to be amazed in this modern day of science and reason how it is that their are people so stupid as to believe such a vast load of crap.
What happened to the last few ice ages and what about the vast amounts physical evidence for them?
What about the physical evidence of the erosion of rocks and the annual layers in sedimentary rock that logically could only have occurred over many millions or billions of years?
What about all the salt in the oceans that could only accumulate to such high concentrations over millions of years?
What about the Bronze age and what about all the physical evidence for the Bronze age?
And what about the total absence of evidence for a global world flood?
-the list goes on and on and on.
18 Feb 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou really are an idiot!
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html
Your site says that carbon-dating is very accurate up to 9,000 years ago.
Some errors creep in after that when carbon-dating gives too young an age.
In other words things are older than carbon-dating suggests!
18 Feb 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd this site quotes work from fifties and sixties.
http://www.varchive.org/ce/c14.htm
But we know of this
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
These effects were first confirmed when samples of wood from around the world, which all had the same age (based on tree ring analysis), showed deviations from the dendrochronological age. Calibration techniques based on tree-ring samples have contributed to increased accuracy since 1962, when they were accurate to 700 years at worst
Science is improving. Dont quote 50 year-old studies!!!
19 Feb 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Most people are not interested in spending time look ina at videos. They want a quick written word that they can just skim over and dismiss. However I have a video I was going to see if suzianne would look at since it really concerns her attitude toward the Genesis account in the Holy Bible and Christianinty, but it also partially deals with this issue too.
And this site quotes work from fifties and sixties.
But we know of this
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
These effects were first confirmed when samples of wood from around the world, which all had the same age (based on tree ring analysis), showed deviations from the dendrochronological age. Calibration techniques based on tre ...[text shortened]... rate to 700 years at worst
[b]Science is improving. Dont quote 50 year-old studies!!![/b]
19 Feb 13
Originally posted by greenpawn34My pappy always said, believe about half of what you hear, but you will only be right about 20% of the time.
"I was always taught: believe half of what you see, a quarter of all you hear,
and nothing of what you read."
But that leaves a quarter.
What about to the missing quarter?
Believe a quarter of what you see on YouTube?
(Only look at the first 25% then switch it off).
19 Feb 13
Originally posted by greenpawn34Scepticism is healthy. Believing what some brainwashing organisation tells you to believe, without questioning and testing and obtaining confirmation from a variety of sources, is diseased.
"I was always taught: believe half of what you see, a quarter of all you hear,
and nothing of what you read."
But that leaves a quarter.
What about to the missing quarter?
Believe a quarter of what you see on YouTube?
(Only look at the first 25% then switch it off).
19 Feb 13
Originally posted by RJHindsOk, so you have a hypothesis, 'believing in evil-lution is stupid'.
Believing is evil-lution is stupid. 😏
In order for you to have scientific credibility, you need to put your money where your mouth is and come up with scientific evidence, real evidence, not stories on a biblical biased creationist site with just opinions but published data, refutations in a respectable scientific journal like Physics Today or something.
Anything other than that is just mouthing off with nothing to say.
20 Feb 13
Originally posted by sonhouseThe evil-lutionists own those scientific journals, so there is little chance they will allow any studies by creationists that challenge their worldview.
Ok, so you have a hypothesis, 'believing in evil-lution is stupid'.
In order for you to have scientific credibility, you need to put your money where your mouth is and come up with scientific evidence, real evidence, not stories on a biblical biased creationist site with just opinions but published data, refutations in a respectable scientific journal li ...[text shortened]... ics Today or something.
Anything other than that is just mouthing off with nothing to say.
20 Feb 13
Originally posted by RJHindsCop out. There are scientists who refute claims all the time. They don't OWN anything.
The evil-lutionists own those scientific journals, so there is little chance they will allow any studies by creationists that challenge their worldview.
That is another one of your buddies fantasy moon denier conspiracy theories. You can post all the paranoid fantasy you want but the fact is there IS no scientific refutation, only creationist BS. If there was real refutation, its like this: There has been 150 years head start for you to refute it and it hasn't happened yet and the more time goes by the less chance you creationist right wing nutters have to offer real evidence. Instead all you have is right wing creationist nutters who present 50 year old crap that has been refuted a hundred times over, meaningless BS with no real credibility otherwise it would have been done already.
20 Feb 13
Originally posted by sonhouseDo you think evil-lution has intelligence? If so, where and how did it get it? 😏
Cop out. There are scientists who refute claims all the time. They don't OWN anything.
That is another one of your buddies fantasy moon denier conspiracy theories. You can post all the paranoid fantasy you want but the fact is there IS no scientific refutation, only creationist BS. If there was real refutation, its like this: There has been 150 years head ...[text shortened]... times over, meaningless BS with no real credibility otherwise it would have been done already.
20 Feb 13
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you enjoy trolling the science forum readers? What you're doing is like going to a chess club and saying that chess sucks and everyone should play bridge.
The evil-lutionists own those scientific journals, so there is little chance they will allow any studies by creationists that challenge their worldview.