Forums → WEPR → Evolution, creationism and the school cirriculum
| 697 | 104856 |
Well to start out i dont beleive in evoltuion so the fact that other things cant be taught really ticks me off but i just want to see what people think and why.
- 697 Replies
Lololol. I didn't realize this was from the answersingenesis.com site. I am sorry, but that completely invalidates the argument. That site is not only highly biased, but incredible scientifically inaccurate. Go read what they have to say about the dinosaurs.
I can't believe people buy this load of bull. This is not science. You cannot argue science with this. If you ever try to do so with a scientist, they will laugh you out of the building. If you are going to argue your point with sources, make sure that they are scientifically accurate and in the primary literature.
What you said is that Libby claimed that the carbon half-life was changing over time. This quote doesn't prove that. It doesn't deny anything, in fact. I'm completely dumbfounded as to where you got your assumptions from.
The equalibrium was still changing when he came up with his dating method so he was saying it's hard to make how it still is when it should only take 20,000-30,000 years of radiation also this would mean we dont know for sure the ratio of carbon-14 to nitrogen that would have been in the animals when they died which means we could have a system that isn't working
The equalibrium was still changing when he came up with his dating method so he was saying it's hard to make how it still is when it should only take 20,000-30,000 years of radiation also this would mean we dont know for sure the ratio of carbon-14 to nitrogen that would have been in the animals when they died which means we could have a system that isn't working
Yea, MAYBE in the 1950's it wasn't very accurate. But speaking as someone who is doing research on isotopic carbon concentrations, I can tell you that the methods are a heck of a lot more accurate these days.
carbon dating has already disproven judiasm which thinks we are in like... year 5673
There is no scientific research that supports the theory.
all right well it was thought of by a scientist
which seems more possible anyhow?
dozens of religions all viewpointing on different gods thought of many years ago before humans were as technologically advanced as we are now
or darwins theory he thought of looking at how one island of tortioses had low necks and the other had high necks
each of which looked to come of the same ancestor yet evolved to fit their needs on each island
Yea, MAYBE in the 1950's it wasn't very accurate.
That's why I pointed out the date. 56 years of scientific advances is HUGE.
quote]Go read what they have to say about the dinosaurs. [/quote]
Scientificaly in accurate how?
If you ever try to do so with a scientist, they will laugh you out of the building.
http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Facts-Life-Revised-Updated/dp/0890514925/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227560108&sr=8-1
read the about the author
in the primary literature.
How is that not primary
That's why I pointed out the date. 56 years of scientific advances is HUGE.
true i dont know anything about this and you have a good point but the people who wrote this ARE biologists and other scientists im sure they knew what they were talking about
I can tell you that the methods are a heck of a lot more accurate these days.
Ya but we still wouldn't know the ratio the carbon-14 and nitrogen when the animal died which could screw up the date
true i dont know anything about this and you have a good point but the people who wrote this ARE biologists and other scientists im sure they knew what they were talking about
Yes, but it was over 50 years ago.
We're more accurate now. Find an article like that recently, in a peer-reviewed journal, THEN we can chat. Quoting a 50 year old article is as good as quoting no article.
Yes, but it was over 50 years ago.
Exactly, a ton changes over 50 years. Some theories still apply, but most have been shown to have large gaps and many exceptions.
Quoting a 50 year old article is as good as quoting no article.
Depends on the article. But yes, this isn't one of those that still applies well to current science.
Scientificaly in accurate how?
"Representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals, including the dinosaur kinds, went aboard Noahâs Ark. All those left outside the Ark died in the cataclysmic circumstances of the Flood, and many of their remains became fossils. After the Flood, around 4,300 years ago, the remnant of the land animals, including dinosaurs, came off the Ark and lived in the present world, along with people. Because of sin, the judgments of the Curse and the Flood have greatly changed earth. Post-Flood climatic change, lack of food, disease, and manâs activities caused many types of animals to become extinct. The dinosaurs, like many other creatures, died out." - From answersingenesis
Well, as someone who has taken quite a few paleobiology and classes specifically focused on fossil vertebrates and dinosaurs, I can very confidently tell you that this is so scientifically inaccurate that it makes me think that the entire site must be filled with such similar lies. Somethings such as... hey, carbon dating! would be able to tell you that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. And NOT because of issues with Noah's Ark.
true i dont know anything about this
Then I don't understand why you insist on defending obviously flawed literature when you don't have the background personally to back up what you are saying. A bid of advice: I would stick to something that you are familiar with, and can better defend yourself on. Using someone else's research that you don't understand will normally not end well.
This partially touches on the research I am working on right now. I am currently working on extracting the isotopic composition of 18,000 year old foraminifera. I am not trying to toot my own horn here, I am trying to explain that this is the stuff I work on. This is my research, I have to know this stuff. Meaning, I can actively and largely accurately defend myself against arguments on the issue. I am not going to try and argue something that I have no knowledge on. Do you see where I am getting at here?
Stick to what you know, or know you can defend. And be able to recognize when the information is faulty or inaccurate.
The equalibrium was still changing when he came up with his dating method so he was saying it's hard to make how it still is when it should only take 20,000-30,000 years of radiation also this would mean we dont know for sure the ratio of carbon-14 to nitrogen that would have been in the animals when they died which means we could have a system that isn't working
Forgot to address this... I just thought you might like to know that Libby was actually the person who helped prove the accuracy of carbon dating. So as to why they are trying to use him to prove that it isn't accurate is beyond me.
pche, who gives a crap.. honestly. I think that the evolution of life is complete bs. In fact many scientists don't even think thats how it truely happened lately. As mr macky says: "so that retard fish had to have sex with that retard...." and so on and so forth... I personally don't know how we got here, but who cares? Is it gonna affect the way we live? no. If the school decides to teach us the scientology way, i'd say cool w/e and move on. If people are actually hurt by the way schools are teaching them you need to get a life... I'm sry but now a days theres way to much to deal with thats actually important. (Scientology way- (this may sound like south park, but its actually the real way. My friend (whos parents are frickin rich) was an athiest and decided to try it out. And he laughed his @ss outta there. So here it is. Aliens from another planet had to many life forms. So they had to kill some because there planet was overpopulating. Therefore they killed a whole bunch of them and put there bodies into a giant freezer. This freezer was put into a giant ship and transported across the universe, where they found earth. They then melted the ice, and in a giant molten lava pit, which destroyed the bodies entirely and left some sort of bidy essence, which went into cavemen and developed life as we know it. Yes its crazy. Yes its frickin hillarious. And yes tom cruise believes in this crap. So as for me? I'd laugh my @ss off if the school taught it. But again its a religion that makes you pay loads of money. Soo yeaa.. no offense to some of you guys out there, but you could use that money towards alot of other stuff in life.)
^ you can't expect to go anywhere without knowing where you came from
i did hear that the scientology charges like 100,000$ a lesson to learn their way
i did hear that the scientology charges like 100,000$ a lesson to learn their way
$100000 eh? Hm, that might be the going price if you want to take your OTVIII courses and above. Which, if I recall the Wikipedia article, they haven't even written most of just yet.
If people are actually hurt by the way schools are teaching them you need to get a life... I'm sry but now a days theres way to much to deal with thats actually important.
You've just revealed that you don't care about education.
That's not a good look.
Really neither theory has enough evidence to even come close to a fact...and most of the evidence for each is corrupted because if the original ideas are wrong then everything comes crumbling down and i beleive that both have the same amount of evidence it's just interpreted differently...also creationists and evolutionist put more stock into some scientific discoveries...and ill admit creationism has a lot of gaps and weaker points...but the so does evolution
There is no comparison between creationism and evolution. To bring them up in the same sentence belies an absolute ignorance of the difference between science and philosophy.
There is not one iota of scientific evidence to support creationism. Instead it is supported by an ignorant emotional attachment to an ancient superstition.
Because of this total lack of evidence, creationists are forced to spend all their efforts looking for ways to undermine evolution and to encourage the continued ignorance of science as a whole, as a means of promoting their unsubstantiated and unprovable claims. All because people are afraid of facing life without an imaginary friend. It's sad.
You must be logged in to post a reply!