Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,755 Year: 4,012/9,624 Month: 883/974 Week: 210/286 Day: 17/109 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Dman
Member (Idle past 5043 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 63 of 207 (502035)
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 5043 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 161 of 207 (502386)
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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024