Turning evolution on its head:

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you figure there is nothing religious in the motivation for such statements that the Earth is 6000 years old? You must think we are as weak willed as all you religious young creationist right wing nutters if you think we can't figure out where you are coming from with such absurd statements.

You know that there is scientific evidence that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old for I have presented some of it before. I haven't got what you would call proof, but neither does the old Earth people for their billions of years.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
You know that there is scientific evidence that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old for I have presented some of it before. I haven't got what you would call proof, but neither does the old Earth people for their billions of years.

The Instructor

The scientific evidence for the ancient age of Earth is consistent over 20 separate disciplines. There is no way around that fact. You clearly hate the use of the intelligence you think was given to us by your god. You would take us back 1000 years with your blind obedience to your brainwashing.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you figure there is nothing religious in the motivation for such statements that the Earth is 6000 years old? You must think we are as weak willed as all you religious young creationist right wing nutters if you think we can't figure out where you are coming from with such absurd statements.

Although 6000 years old does seem far fetched, the scientific community has yet to contend with the problems of dating sedimentary rock in which there is evidence of human remains as well as as tools and footprints. If we can step back from the teachings we have accepted as fact how how and when rock formations occur we may be able to get closer to the truth. As it is now we have evolution vs. creation camps trying to fit the evidence to their belief system instead of taking what is in front of them and learning from it.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Although 6000 years old does seem far fetched, the scientific community has yet to contend with the problems of dating sedimentary rock in which there is evidence of human remains as well as as tools and footprints. If we can step back from the teachings we have accepted as fact how how and when rock formations occur we may be able to get closer to the tr ...[text shortened]... evidence to their belief system instead of taking what is in front of them and learning from it.

the scientific community has yet to contend with the problems of dating sedimentary rock in which there is evidence of human remains as well as as tools and footprints.

This is simply not true. There might be some difficulty obtaining the ages of a very tiny proportion of the remains where no standard dating method can be reliably applied, but, for the vast majority of sedimentary rocks including those with footprints in them, and for the vast majority of fossilized human bone remains, radiometric dating methods alone, even when excluding other dating methods which are sometimes used in conjunction with radiometric dating and which give good agreement with its estimates, gives a reliable estimate of how old it is. This is because the laws of physics determine the decay rate of each radioactive isotope and thus we can be rationally extremely confident that the decay rate is going to be constant.

Originally posted by humy

the scientific community has [b]yet to contend with the problems of dating sedimentary rock in which there is evidence of human remains as well as as tools and footprints.

This is simply not true. There might be some difficulty obtaining the ages of a very tiny proportion of the remains where no standard dating method can be reliably ...[text shortened]... e and thus we can be rationally extremely confident that the decay rate is going to be constant.[/b]

Lies, lies, and more lies.

The Instructor

Originally posted by joe beyser
Although 6000 years old does seem far fetched, the scientific community has yet to contend with the problems of dating sedimentary rock in which there is evidence of human remains as well as as tools and footprints. If we can step back from the teachings we have accepted as fact how how and when rock formations occur we may be able to get closer to the tr ...[text shortened]... evidence to their belief system instead of taking what is in front of them and learning from it.

It's not evolution Vs creationism, it is the truth vs biblical fairy tales.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Lies, lies, and more lies.

The Instructor

So it is a lie that the laws of physics determine the decay rate of each radioactive isotope? OK then, show your physics credentials and then explain to us how is this part of physics you have studied and comprehended all a big lie and tell use the correct equation in true physics that really determines the decay rate of each radioactive isotope ....

Originally posted by sonhouse
It's not evolution Vs creationism, it is the truth vs biblical fairy tales.

This is your Evilution fairy tale:

YouTube

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is your Evilution fairy tale:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIEFl4t6nQ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIEFl4t6nQ8

The Instructor

we don't watch your stupid videos. We are only interested in real science, not a load of religious crap.

Originally posted by humy
we don't watch your stupid videos. We are only interested in real science, not a load of religious crap.

Nothing religious there.

The Instructor

Originally posted by humy
we don't watch your stupid videos. We are only interested in real science, not a load of religious crap.

It is my contention that both sides of this argument are biased more on belief than fact. A good example is the radiometric dating methods you used as an example earlier. The assumptions that are made in order for these methods to work are a leap of faith and not factual. Back in the 70's it was admitted that the radiometric dating evidence that does not match what is known based on the geological evidence is thrown out. The geologic column does exist but the interpretation has been skewed toward the evolution way of thinking. Under scrutiny these methods of finding the age of something does not work. The ideas are brilliant but cannot overcome a leap of faith that is required as assumptions had to be made.

Originally posted by joe beyser
It is my contention that both sides of this argument are biased more on belief than fact. A good example is the radiometric dating methods you used as an example earlier. The assumptions that are made in order for these methods to work are a leap of faith and not factual. Back in the 70's it was admitted that the radiometric dating evidence that does not ...[text shortened]... e brilliant but cannot overcome a leap of faith that is required as assumptions had to be made.

That is all just so totally delusional. There is absolutely NO rational or scientific doubt that modern radiometric dating methods generally give very reliable estimates.

Originally posted by joe beyser
It is my contention that both sides of this argument are biased more on belief than fact. A good example is the radiometric dating methods you used as an example earlier. The assumptions that are made in order for these methods to work are a leap of faith and not factual. Back in the 70's it was admitted that the radiometric dating evidence that does not ...[text shortened]... e brilliant but cannot overcome a leap of faith that is required as assumptions had to be made.

That unreliability in dating would be a problem if there were just one dating method in use. The fact of the matter is there are about 20 separate techniques that date geologic time. They all agree within some window of uncertainty but that window is narrow enough to conclude the dates can be taken seriously. So they might be off a million years or more on the older dating techniques. 1 million years out in 4 billion years of Earth history makes that dating accurate to within one part in 4000.

If I measure the width of a cylinder with several methods, say a ruler around the cylinder and divide by PI, or I use a digital caliper and measure the diameter that way, they will both agree and I personally would be as happy as a pig in shyte if my measurements in total gave me an accuracy of one part in 4000. In inches, that would be a measurement accurate to within 250 MILLIONTHS of an inch. Anyone at Volvo or Toyota or Detroit would be totally happy with that kind of measurement on motor parts. The only thing I can think of in my personal experience that needs more accuracy than that is a device called the Ferrofluidic feedthrough which uses a magnetically active fluid in the presence of a magnetic field which sets up a barrier to air going by a shaft and so functions quite well as an interface between mechanical requirements (getting rotating parts inside a vacuum system) and keeping the integrity of said vacuum and the shaft and its holder needs to be accurate to within 100 microinches, one part in 10,000.

That is one of the very few devices needing that kind of physical accuracy.

If dating methods were that accurate, it would be within 250,000 years out of 4 billion year of accuracy.

But even 1 million years out of 4 billion is WAY good enough to give confidence to such dating.

Like saying something is 4,500,000,000 years old when in fact it is 4,501,000,000 years old. Not exactly something to get all whooped up about the misread date.

Originally posted by humy
That is all just so totally delusional. There is absolutely NO rational or scientific doubt that modern radiometric dating methods generally give very reliable estimates.

I think you are either ignorant of the facts or you are in denial. The second options seems more reasonable.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
That unreliability in dating would be a problem if there were just one dating method in use. The fact of the matter is there are about 20 separate techniques that date geologic time. They all agree within some window of uncertainty but that window is narrow enough to conclude the dates can be taken seriously. So they might be off a million years or more on ...[text shortened]... is 4,501,000,000 years old. Not exactly something to get all whooped up about the misread date.

All those dating methods that give million and billions of years as the resulting dates are obviously flawed when the things being dated are known to be nowhere near that old. The scientific community knows they are all flawed and still use them, because they are easy to do and they give the kind of old age dates they need to support evolution.

The Instructor