PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     *Hey im new here I HAVE A Q*~
       hey i have a question on creationism..

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yes they do


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:51 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
ProEvo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You can use carbon dating on sea shells but that doesnt make it right. If you did that today then the scientific community would kindly tell you that it is not the right thing to do. You can drive a car with your feet but its not the right thing to do.
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 10:54 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

u mean u cant use carbon dating on sea  shells becausei ts "not right"?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:59 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
ProEvo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You can use it on sea shells, just like you can use your feet to drive your car, but scientists as well as motorists would say it is the wrong method. If you published a scientific paper (something creationists are not good at) and you used carbon dating on sea shells then the scientific community would not consider your work to be accurate, or correct because of the methods that you used.
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 11:17 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

u mean u cant use carbon dating on sea  shells becausei ts "not right"?

Yes, because in some water environments, the shells absord excess carbon, invalidating the reading.  But scientists know this, they can compensate, they can date other samples that aren't contaminated.
But what you don't seem to understand is carbon dating is only good going back about 50,000 years.  Carbon dating isn't used for dating how old the earth is.  There are about 40 different methods of radiometric dating.  Samples are usually dated by more than 2 different methods, the results always concurr.
Please explain why over 40 different methods of radiometric dating are all wrong and why they give us the same dates...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:29 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

proof please


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:42 AM on August 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

proof please

What do you want proof of?

And are you going to answer my qauestion?  How can over 40 different radiometric dating techniques all give the same wrong answer?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:23 AM on August 13, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

proof that they are right


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 2:26 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

proof that they are right


Proof is a meaningless term. It does not exist in scientific terminology.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:48 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the result is the estimate of a machine. To really no the earths exact age or watever, then u need 2 to go back in time.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:35 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the result is the estimate of a machine. To really no the earths exact age or watever, then u need 2 to go back in time.


Not even that would provide "proof" of the earth's age. Your knowledge is based on what you perceive to be facts; you make logical premises from these perceived experiences, and those premises yield conclusions. However, if your perceptions are incorrect, your premises are incorrect, and logic reasoning cannot function when the premise breaks down. Without a valid premise, your conclusion is likewise incorrect.

In other words, you have no way of proving that what you touch, taste, smell, see and hear is an accurate depiction of the world. You and I are utterly incapable of proving anything, from the age of the earth to whether or not I'm typing on a computer right now.

With that said, we can make logical conclusions from the data we do perceive, and the data we receive says the earth is billions of years old. We know this to the same degree that we know 2+2=4.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:55 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the result is the estimate of a machine. To really no the earths exact age or watever, then u need 2 to go back in time.

So evidence doesn't count...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:03 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no u need solid evidence.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 12:03 PM on August 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no u need solid evidence.

Radioactive decay is solid evidence.  Bet you can't refute it.  All you've done is parrot creationist claims that were proven false long ago.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:50 PM on August 17, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.