Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Dman
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 63 of 312 (502036)
03-09-2009 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Kelly
03-09-2009 11:39 AM


Re: Radiocarbon dating
quote:
How can scientists know for sure the age of any rock or the age of the earth with this in mind? Steven Austin, PhD geology, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.
Well this is some more deceptive information you are reading here Kelly.
From talkorigins here:
quote:
Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
Sure you can say they went about it scientifically. But they were very deceptive in nature about the conclusions.
Why are you just believing anything these "scientists" tell you. Their intentions are quite obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 11:39 AM Kelly has not replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 161 of 312 (502387)
03-11-2009 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Kelly
03-11-2009 10:17 AM


Re: Creation Science
quote:
..is a study of the evidence left behind, looking to test the creation model hypothesis which says that life was created suddenly and all things were completed at that time.
So for this to be science, the evidence left behind should have given the notion of "creation" to create such a hypothesis. Where are the tests to support this prediction? You will not find any, because "creation science" presupposes creation before finding evidence for it. How scientific...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 10:17 AM Kelly has not replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 246 of 312 (502612)
03-12-2009 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 1:40 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
quote:
Yawn...read it all before. I OBSERVE that even written documentation based on LAB experiments can be adjusted to result in what the researcher wants to see for a result. Don't think you've been involved, first hand, in more involved in scientific research than me, cause it's not likely.
This is very strange. Are you accusing all scientists of tinkering with test results?
For someone with unquestionable authority in scientific research, you do not come off that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 1:40 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 3:52 PM Dman has not replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 254 of 312 (502629)
03-12-2009 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 3:14 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
quote:
How exactly like a geologist might feel....especially if there is reduced financial gain unless "the boss/your peers/the media" likes your pet theories.
How exactly do you know a geologist might feel this way? Applying your personal problem with your boss to any other realm of science, is just, well, stupid.
By your logic any scientist with a boss, is not doing proper science and "fudging" the results. Get real.
And you misunderstand peer review, it is actually to try and take apart your conclusion of an experiment. So just giving them what they want with fudged answers, will reveal as much. Nice try though.
quote:
I do so love when Science "proves" the Creationist model to better fit the facts.
How does the creationist model better fit the facts? By the way, what is the creation model?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 3:14 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 256 of 312 (502631)
03-12-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 3:22 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
quote:
The Creationist says somebody engineered the marbles to be round to .01 thousands of an inch and placed the color accent stripe in the middle. The "Realist" says it all happened by chance.
The creationist does not actually give an answer then. So it was created, big f'n deal. HOW?
The "realist" tries to figure that out.
Edited by Dman, : Punctuation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 3:22 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024