Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    14 May '14 00:42
    Rocks are very old.
    Fossils are old.
  2. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    15 May '14 03:17
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Rocks are very old.
    Fossils are old.
    Creationists use eyewitness and historical accounts in dating rocks and fossils.
  3. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    15 May '14 04:52
    Scientific Age of the Young Earth

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1GJjHXX0Ic

    There are thousands of scientists with graduate degrees in the natural sciences, who have been convinced by the scientific evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, not billions.
  4. Standard member caissad4
    Child of the Novelty
    15 May '14 06:24
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Creationists use eyewitness and historical accounts in dating rocks and fossils.
    Did you see the you tube video where they interview Fred Flinstone ?
  5. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    15 May '14 07:00
    Originally posted by caissad4
    Did you see the you tube video where they interview Fred Flinstone ?
    I don't remember.
  6. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    15 May '14 13:39
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Scientific Age of the Young Earth

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1GJjHXX0Ic

    There are thousands of scientists with graduate degrees in the natural sciences, who have been convinced by the scientific evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, not billions.
    Compared to HUNDREDS of thousands of Phd'd scientists who don't. Your small minority is just the latest batch of the duped, seeking to gain political converts based on bogus science. Every monkey wrench they try to throw into the science just gets refuted ten times over and there is no recovery from that scientifically, so your couple thousand buddies are just tilting at windmills, nothing more.
  7. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    15 May '14 17:18
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Compared to HUNDREDS of thousands of Phd'd scientists who don't. Your small minority is just the latest batch of the duped, seeking to gain political converts based on bogus science. Every monkey wrench they try to throw into the science just gets refuted ten times over and there is no recovery from that scientifically, so your couple thousand buddies are just tilting at windmills, nothing more.
    Well, it makes better sense than evoultion.
  8. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    15 May '14 19:25
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Well, it makes better sense than evoultion.
    Which is why you and your buddies will forever be behind the curve tilting at imaginary windmills if you even know that reference.
  9. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    15 May '14 21:27
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Which is why you and your buddies will forever be behind the curve tilting at imaginary windmills if you even know that reference.
    I suppose you must be referring to Don Quixote.
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    15 May '14 21:43
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I suppose you must be referring to Don Quixote.
    See, you get the tilting award.
  11. Standard member forkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    16 May '14 00:06
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Scientific Age of the Young Earth

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1GJjHXX0Ic

    There are thousands of scientists with graduate degrees in the natural sciences, who have been convinced by the scientific evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, not billions.
    This is fun.

    Let's keep posting videos forever

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    16 May '14 00:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by forkedknight
    This is fun.

    Let's keep posting videos forever

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4
    You don't expect him to watch YOUR video do you? If it has any refutation of YEC bullcrap it is obviously faked in RJ's eyes.

    Great video!
  13. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    16 May '14 02:34
    Originally posted by forkedknight
    This is fun.

    Let's keep posting videos forever

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4
    Even your commentator admits carbon dating doesn't work under certain circumstances, like with mollusk shells because they live in water. How about a worldwide flood that covered the earth for about a year? Couldn't that water mess up the carbon dating too? Anything that is fossilized requires water, mud, etc.
  14. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    16 May '14 10:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Even your commentator admits carbon dating doesn't work under certain circumstances, like with mollusk shells because they live in water. How about a worldwide flood that covered the earth for about a year? Couldn't that water mess up the carbon dating too? Anything that is fossilized requires water, mud, etc.
    What do you mean, EVEN the commentator,etc.? That was the whole POINT of the exercise to see what limits the use of carbon dating so they can rule out bad dates. Did you get the part of these YEC'ers trying to carbon date Jurassic park fossils? THEIR AINT NO CARBON THERE TO DATE. Or did you just skim past that part?

    Also, about your "Kind'' bit. If an animal does your micro evolutionary adaptation thing you tout, but is on one side of a divide like a mountain range or something and a bunch micro's its way on the left side and another on the right side and they micro their way down to the other side of the divide, a funny thing happens, some of them cannot now reproduce with each other, the left side line coming to meet the right hand side.

    This is a case of a dog not being able to reproduce with another dog.

    It's now a different "Kind". What do you know. Evolution in action, just as we have said all along.

    Look at this Wiki bit to see what I am talking about:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
  15. Standard member forkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    16 May '14 14:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Even your commentator admits carbon dating doesn't work under certain circumstances, like with mollusk shells because they live in water. How about a worldwide flood that covered the earth for about a year? Couldn't that water mess up the carbon dating too? Anything that is fossilized requires water, mud, etc.
    Yes, it's a known limitation of the technology. It's always better to know and acknowledge your limitations rather than blindly ignoring them.

    That doesn't mean that C14 dating doesn't work really well on plants and land animals.

    If you're so concerned about contradictory evidence, how come you aren't more concerned with the contradictory creation stories in Genesis?