Science Over Faith?

[dontexist21]

no im not, your just to blind to realize you have to look at both sides of the picture. Only proven fact of age is CARBON! 50000 years than its inaccurate to tell other than the layer of ground its in. PERIOD. Please give me a link to your bullshit

They do NOT just use carbon to date fossils they use other isotopes which can date back to 48 BILLION years. Creatures are not only made of carbon. Again I look at the facts, and scientist have conducted multiple test which give data which is in +/- 5% accuracy consistently. And you again show your ignorance about isotope dating methods. What other side is there when the data is reproduced again and again. Under different people studying it. So your saying all the a majority worlds scientist are wrong when they have conducted hrs and hrs of test. I read the results from multiple journals, 80% of my academic college life was spent in a science class or in a lab conducting experiments, I don't just take things on faith. I question everything and believe in the thing that gives me the most clear and consistent results. All you are doing is ignoring this data again and again.

 

[dontexist21]

sorry there are lots of holes in my info, i wrote it so fast.

Alright first off my proof for oxygen being abundant in the past is that there first off wasnt pollution like now, but the big stinger for you is the "t-rex" fossils for example have nostrils the size of a mature horse. Now that is impossible!! WAIT!! Unless the atmosphere has more oxygen. You ask how oxygen could make things grow bigger! Did you know oxygen chambers help you heal dramatically by making the cells multiply at an incredible rate which would prove the theory of something growing from a zygote become steroid zygote and have capabilities of much more. The Collosal shark is proof of that. (pic on bottom)

You are right about the food as part of the equation. The whole thing of people growing bigger now is because were on a wave line not a linear graph of growth. There was middle where oxygen was less AND food was less. Just like how there is also a wave length of global warming and cooling.

And i actually have read of a native american one that is on those lines, you just cant find literature on them as much because they never wrote before we got here. Just cave markings, so ill let you win that one because i cant find the info on it.

That still does not take into account that isotope dating shows that fossils of both dinosaurs and humans are no where near each other. They do not just use carbon they use other isotopes.

 

[CrackerJax]

the Hebrew words לא תרצח are translated as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
the 10 commandments were originally given to the Hebrew people through Moses but ment for everyone

The 10 Commandments were not meant for everybody. they were hijacked by the Christian church. The old Testament was for jews ONLY. PERIOD.

THOU SHALT NOT KILL was meant only for the tribe, no one else got that consideration, and if you read your Bible well....you will see that they used this interpretation on their enemies over and over again.

The only thing that has changed is the interpretation, which is incorrect but useful to the church for power and money gathering.

 

[PadawanBater]

no im not, your just to blind to realize you have to look at both sides of the picture. Only proven fact of age is CARBON! 50000 years than its inaccurate to tell other than the layer of ground its in. PERIOD. Please give me a link to your bullshit

Radiometric dating;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Now shut the fuck up about the dating methods used klass. They're accurate, if they weren't the scientists would be the FIRST motherfuckers to throw them out and start over with accurate measurements.

This is one of the ugliest aspects of this entire 'debate' - if you could even call it that - the fact the opponent does not accept KNOWN, UNDERSTOOD, PROVEN, ACCURATE methods that are used to determine our conclusions.

Enough is seriously enough with that bullshit. OK, you don't accept it, go get educated on the subject by someone with some basic understanding on it.

If you post something saying the methods being used to date every fucking thing we've ever dated, ever are wrong, then tell me why they're wrong. Don't just say carbon is the only element we use to date shit, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, check that link I posted, potassium-argon dating, uranium-lead dating... what do you say about that? Pwned.


And wouldn't you know it!! Somebody must have missed the other thread!! I seriously LOL'd at that shit! Here wait, lemee go get it!

I posted this;

You wanna know what I've heard?

Cuz I've been asking the same questions up and down the internet...

...get this...

DRAGONS! They're dragons! lmfao

All those skeletons and bones we have sitting in museums... yep, dragons... the Bible talks about dragons, they found bones of big lizards... Believers say that's more proof of the bible's authenticity...

Christian logic man...

...lmfao, and look what klass came back with!

First off the dinosoars actually did live with us. There is lots to back this up you just have to read.
Did you know that they have found human foot prints along side dinosaurs mummified in the layers of ground. There is so much old artifacts that point to there being "dinosaurs" but original name is Dragon in the 1300's and before. Knights would slay them for the honour. The kids fairytale is based off the partial truth. Even to this day we have dinosaurs, its called alligators and crocodiles and lizards ( reptiles).

Priceless!

 

[CrackerJax]

What's the average IQ again? lawdy....

 

[dontexist21]

You just don't put out a scientific process in the scientific community without it being test over and over and over and over again. When someone comes around and shows me data which can replicated consistently that shows me its wrong I will think other wise. Thats how the scientific process works, always questioning and understanding the data. My brother who is in 7th grade understands this more then some people.

 

[fish601]

You just don't put out a scientific process in the scientific community without it being test over and over and over and over again. When someone comes around and shows me data which can replicated consistently that shows me its wrong I will think other wise. Thats how the scientific process works, always questioning and understanding the data. My brother who is in 7th grade understands this more then some people.

they can produce the same result each time but that doesnt make them accurate just consistant

 

[dontexist21]

Fish I can not argue with someone that clearly does not understand any thing about science, and uses faith to refute it. You enjoy your belief that has no basis except for a book that was written a few thousand years ago. I will enjoy understanding and questioning things around me. Accepting what gives me the most consistent and accurate data. They test the technique against known items, so I am sure that they are accurate, if you do not believe that, tell me why. Just saying something is wrong without giving a reason is a very weak argument, and rarely stands up in a argument. Creationism has its place in theology next the Greek, Native America, African and other traditions. They are all just as valid and provide the same amount of evidence as creationism, none. Evolution can stay as a science since it has data which can be tested and provides accurate and consistent results and questioned. Till someone provides me and 99% of the scientific community with a alternative that meet those requirements I will still believe in it and it will thankfully be taught in any rational Science class.

Good Day
PS

+Rep for Cracker and Padawan

 

[fish601]

sure they can date known items.. not much has changed since then.

 

[PadawanBater]

sure they can date known items.. not much has changed since then.

Who keeps telling you we can't date older objects?

Why don't you acknowledge the links and sources I've posted that verify we can infact date things much older than 50,000 years with pretty decent accuracy?

This is a huge flaw in your reasoning fish, there is nothing wrong with the dating methods.

If you believed they were accurate, what would that do to your belief in God?

 

[CrackerJax]

Paddy, it takes someone with the ability to be objective to understand the concept. Fish is out of his element the second objectivity is required....he doesn't have any.

His mind is shut. He is the perfect target audience for a religion myth.

Like a kid three days after Halloween, even though it's obvious that the candy isn't the best choice any longer, he can't stop eating it up.

 

[klassenkid]

First im going to change my words, when i say scientist i mean the general scientist. When i say evolution scientist I mean the 27% who are still pushers of evolution and who are against the bible and just want to prove it wrong and will brain wash many morrons to believe them. Thats right i said pushers, not believers because there are so many holes in evolution that it cant be looked at as truly serious anymore.

Micro evolution is a fact

Macro evolution is impossible because of the simple laws of science.

Who keeps telling you we can't date older objects?

Why don't you acknowledge the links and sources I've posted that verify we can infact date things much older than 50,000 years with pretty decent accuracy?

This is a huge flaw in your reasoning fish, there is nothing wrong with the dating methods.

If you believed they were accurate, what would that do to your belief in God?

You are showing a low IQ, first who uses the Wikipedia as a source, I could make it say that Because Bush likes it up the ass as the definition for uranium- lead dating.

STOP SAYING THE DATINGS ARE FACTS, no one truly knows how old things are. its there best way of getting consistent number. Scientists are the ones who decided on the amount of years to put on for each reading. They love answers so they can make a chart so everything is filled with no blanks. They assume millions and billions because they believe in evolution which in that theory requires billions of years for it to be true. You will never truly know the age of what your are experimenting on untill you have something that you know for sure is that age and then you may starting looking at other fossils that have that "consistency".

Do you know why i say carbon dating is the only accurate reading of age. Because its the only one the doesnt require also layers of ground to be a factor in its age for consistency. I say this because in the artic (where i live) Geologists undcovered a world war 2 plane that had emergency landed. But with how many layers that were inbetween it and the surface would have indicated it to be a couple thousands years old.

Ill soon find the article on it

Fish I can not argue with someone that clearly does not understand any thing about science, and uses faith to refute it. You enjoy your belief that has no basis except for a book that was written a few thousand years ago. I will enjoy understanding and questioning things around me. Accepting what gives me the most consistent and accurate data. They test the technique against known items, so I am sure that they are accurate, if you do not believe that, tell me why. Just saying something is wrong without giving a reason is a very weak argument, and rarely stands up in a argument. Creationism has its place in theology next the Greek, Native America, African and other traditions. They are all just as valid and provide the same amount of evidence as creationism, none. Evolution can stay as a science since it has data which can be tested and provides accurate and consistent results and questioned. Till someone provides me and 99% of the scientific community with a alternative that meet those requirements I will still believe in it and it will thankfully be taught in any rational Science class.

Good Day
PS

+Rep for Cracker and Padawan

cough idiot. yeah you stick to the few facts of evolution no one can truly proof you wrong on because we cant go millions of years back to prove wrong. I CALL THAT A RELIGION!!

There has been so many things that evolution scientists quickly jumped the gun on and put in the text books before truly being facts but were called FACTS over and over again. Remember how they said all mamals look the exact same when first in the embreo, it was proven wrong.

same as many things i have mentioned that you have ignored, you have just stuck with what hasnt been proven wrong and called me an idiot for questioning it. Whos the closed minded person?

Im not saying that dating methods are false, im just saying they are still estimates and are accurate just to their other estimates.

Radiometric dating;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Now shut the fuck up about the dating methods used klass. They're accurate, if they weren't the scientists would be the FIRST motherfuckers to throw them out and start over with accurate measurements.

This is one of the ugliest aspects of this entire 'debate' - if you could even call it that - the fact the opponent does not accept KNOWN, UNDERSTOOD, PROVEN, ACCURATE methods that are used to determine our conclusions.

Enough is seriously enough with that bullshit. OK, you don't accept it, go get educated on the subject by someone with some basic understanding on it.

If you post something saying the methods being used to date every fucking thing we've ever dated, ever are wrong, then tell me why they're wrong. Don't just say carbon is the only element we use to date shit, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, check that link I posted, potassium-argon dating, uranium-lead dating... what do you say about that? Pwned.


And wouldn't you know it!! Somebody must have missed the other thread!! I seriously LOL'd at that shit! Here wait, lemee go get it!

I posted this;



...lmfao, and look what klass came back with!



Priceless!

Im confused, yeah sorry i missed your thread but how does that make the theory of dinosaurs and humans walking together false? Why is there cave drawing with dinosaurs on them, they drew what they seen.

 

[fish601]

If you believed they were accurate, what would that do to your belief in God?

it wouldnt change a thing. i told you i do not care how old the earth is. I just know the dating methods do not work

 

[Nocturn3]

I just know the dating methods do not work

You didn't even know how they worked until yesterday, but you know for a fact that they don't work? No, you believe they don't work, because it is contrary to scripture.

Do you honestly think that your new-found knowledge of dating methods makes you more of an authority than the people who work in the field? You know more than all the professors at various labs and universities around the world?

 

[klassenkid]

You didn't even know how they worked until yesterday, but you know for a fact that they don't work? No, you believe they don't work, because it is contrary to scripture.

Do you honestly think that your new-found knowledge of dating methods makes you more of an authority than the people who work in the field? You know more than all the professors at various labs and universities around the world?

then stop replying about him if he's absurd and irrational.

I want you macro evolution religiousness to take a good look at my statements and see how anti-god scientist have bloomed all these false facts in our heads. But are just a piece of the puzzle and with it make a whole picture and claim it to be a fact.

Example.

lets say you are the kid and the evolution scientist is the older brother.

The kid goes for the last banana, but then the brother sees this and decides he wants it. So he goes up to his little brother and tells him a story

Big brother " you see those little black dots in a circle in the banana core? Well did you know that a banana is just a spider that dies on a tree and gets covered with mold and then at age the last layer hardens to create the skin?"

kid " shit i dont want it"

The banana is the world and the worlds mysteries are the creation of that banana

 

[Nocturn3]

then stop replying about him if he's absurd and irrational.

I want you macro evolution religiousness to take a good look at my statements and see how anti-god scientist have bloomed all these false facts in our heads. But are just a piece of the puzzle and with it make a whole picture and claim it to be a fact.

Example.

lets say you are the kid and the evolution scientist is the older brother.

The kid goes for the last banana, but then the brother sees this and decides he wants it. So he goes up to his little brother and tells him a story

Big brother " you see those little black dots in a circle in the banana core? Well did you know that a banana is just a spider that dies on a tree and gets covered with mold and then at age the last layer hardens to create the skin?"

kid " shit i dont want it"

The banana is the world and the worlds mysteries are the creation of that banana

I never said he was absurd and irrational. You, on the other hand, clearly are.

At least fish occasionally asks the right questions, even if he refuses to absorb the answers.

 

[dontexist21]

First im going to change my words, when i say scientist i mean the general scientist. When i say evolution scientist I mean the 27% who are still pushers of evolution and who are against the bible and just want to prove it wrong and will brain wash many morrons to believe them. Thats right i said pushers, not believers because there are so many holes in evolution that it cant be looked at as truly serious anymore.

Micro evolution is a fact

Macro evolution is impossible because of the simple laws of science.



You are showing a low IQ, first who uses the Wikipedia as a source, I could make it say that Because Bush likes it up the ass as the definition for uranium- lead dating.

STOP SAYING THE DATINGS ARE FACTS, no one truly knows how old things are. its there best way of getting consistent number. Scientists are the ones who decided on the amount of years to put on for each reading. They love answers so they can make a chart so everything is filled with no blanks. They assume millions and billions because they believe in evolution which in that theory requires billions of years for it to be true. You will never truly know the age of what your are experimenting on untill you have something that you know for sure is that age and then you may starting looking at other fossils that have that "consistency".

Do you know why i say carbon dating is the only accurate reading of age. Because its the only one the doesnt require also layers of ground to be a factor in its age for consistency. I say this because in the artic (where i live) Geologists undcovered a world war 2 plane that had emergency landed. But with how many layers that were inbetween it and the surface would have indicated it to be a couple thousands years old.

Ill soon find the article on it


cough idiot. yeah you stick to the few facts of evolution no one can truly proof you wrong on because we cant go millions of years back to prove wrong. I CALL THAT A RELIGION!!

There has been so many things that evolution scientists quickly jumped the gun on and put in the text books before truly being facts but were called FACTS over and over again. Remember how they said all mamals look the exact same when first in the embreo, it was proven wrong.

same as many things i have mentioned that you have ignored, you have just stuck with what hasnt been proven wrong and called me an idiot for questioning it. Whos the closed minded person?

Im not saying that dating methods are false, im just saying they are still estimates and are accurate just to their other estimates.



Im confused, yeah sorry i missed your thread but how does that make the theory of dinosaurs and humans walking together false? Why is there cave drawing with dinosaurs on them, they drew what they seen.

Of course we cannot go back millions of years but at least we have test to support it. Tell me WHY the dating methods do not work. Science is not a religion since we have data to back everything up, and when someone brings up a theory that can challenge it, it will be challenged. Religion has NO DATA, AND CANNOT BE QUESTIONED OR PROVEN WRONG. Where did you get you 27% from, 99.9% of world scientist believe in evolution (http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm
Here is the paragraph which states my numbers

Dr. Brian Alters is an international leader in education and the author of the best-selling book Defending Evolution in the Classroom. He holds dual appointments with McGill University in Montreal and Harvard University. He is also founder and director of the Evolution Education Research Center at McGill.

"Overall, the nation has a big problem," said Alters. "Approximately half of the U.S. population thinks evolution does (or did) not occur. While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory," he reported.

So where did you get that 27%. Again Other isotopes such as lead and potassium are used, which can date back 45 BILLION. Tell me why the theory of half lives of isotopes and their use in dating is wrong, THEN you can make a credible argument. Just because you say something is wrong does not make it wrong till you can BACK IT UP. Plenty of scientist study and use these techniques and they have more credibility then you have. Dating methods are only thing that scientist to use explain evolution, it can also be explain use genetic recombination. Just because a plane lands below a certain level can be explain with other factors. Such as the place where the plane landed might have not have been as solid at that time. Or maybe I am wrong. But your statement of the plane does not provide a clear connection to disproving dating methods especially isotope dating methods. Stating that their estimates are wrong just because they can only compare them to other estimates means that those dating methods to be wrong in some way means the theory of isotope half lives is wrong. Can you explain to me why that theory would be wrong?

 

[klassenkid]

wow i shouldnt even open my mouth, your very close minded. There is no point in even me talking.

AGAIN you say just evolution. dontexit get out of this debate if you think there's just black and white.

Here let me clear up your statment, its 99.99999% who believe in some sort evolution, meaning micro, which is things like what Darwin witnessed with finches.

There are maybe now less then 27% who believe in macro, which is the evolving of one species to another.

Do you want the end story of macro evolution that makes the big bang false? Its genetically impossible for the genes to create a new complete structure on its own. For example like a fish creating legs. You can only just create more or less of what they already have which is called a mutation and doesnt normally follow through to the offspring. for example and extra leg or finger. Lets say somehow the genes did create legs for a fish, WHY?? Suddenly the fish just decided it liked what land looked like and said hey lets make some legs! So what each generation of the specie was like okay first ill make a stubbie, and each generation after will continue on that. Yeah thats likely. But right they make it sound more reasonable but saying it happened over billions of years because no one can prove that wrong. Darwin came up with the so called macro evolution when all he witnessed was micro evolution (which is absolutely true) and he had no idea about our technology that has conjured up the info that no DNA can just mutate a whole new peice into itself. NOT POSSIBLE.

The case is not if macro evolution is true but to start on the drawing board again. Which a lot of scientist have done, the many that havnt are there for the money to sucker everyone else into the lie and making themsleves rich with support money to find the fucking missing chimp.

 

[Nocturn3]

wow i shouldnt even open my mouth, your very close minded. There is no point in even me talking.

Finally, something we can agree on.

 

[klassenkid]

Hmmm I think this is like win 5 for anti evolutionist. I have brought up so many different peices to the puzzel. Proven there was more oxygen back in the day and yet all you guys stick to is the fucking istopes. How bout I let you win that one and we move on I really want your answers for my other statements you guys have continously ignored.