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
     evolution vs. creation beliefs
       Do you believe in evolution or creation?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Poll Question: Do you believe in evolution or creation?   (10 votes)
  Evolution    70% (7 votes)
  Niether    0% (0 votes)
  Creation    30% (3 votes)
Guests Cannot Vote


    
The Debater

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Do you believe in evolution or creation?


-------
The Debater
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 3:24 PM on November 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't "believe in evolution, I accept it based on the evidence, just like any other scientific theory.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:59 PM on November 24, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excellent answer Demon.  Just like saying 'I don't believe in gravity.  I accept it because it is a basic fact.'
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:59 PM on November 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science doesn't deal with beliefs, and i don't care about them either.

I care about predicting abilities. That's the basic power any real knowledge should give.

The ToE has given me lots of that. The power religion gives you is to sleep better at night (at best).

I won't vote. Sounds quite silly. Reality is not a democracy.

Edit: Now is when i must be a condescending ass. But the silliness of your intervention tells me that you're a creationist, debater.

I give it a... Mmm... 90% chance.

I can almost smell your disdain for Science.


(Edited by wisp 11/24/2009 at 8:59 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:50 PM on November 24, 2009 | IP
fisher

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 7:59 PM on November 24, 2009 :
Excellent answer Demon.  Just like saying 'I don't believe in gravity.  I accept it because it is a basic fact.'



Do you see dogs turning into cats....we can see rain falling from the sky(gravity) but do we see mice turning into rabbits....

It is a "basic fact" which has never been proven, sure there is lots of evidence for it, but we do not see it happening. yes we can breed wolves into different shapes and sizes of "dogs" which are still wolves because they can interbreed. but can we breed cows into anything but differntly shaped cows.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 02:39 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fisher at 08:39 AM on November 25, 2009 :
[quote

Do you see dogs turning into cats....we can see rain falling from the sky(gravity) but do we see mice turning into rabbits....
LMAO. Typical Creationist illiteracy.


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 03:45 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is a belief based on what has never been observed -it is a faith position.

Creationists believe that change has limits - an observable phenomenon -thus their faith is based on observation.

The evolutionist's faith is based on magical possibilities and never before seen transformations believed to have occurred long ago and far away in the non-existant past.

They like to think that their belief system is based on observational science but unfortunately it is not.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:25 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

fisher

It is a "basic fact" which has never been proven, sure there is lots of evidence for it, but we do not see it happening


Yes, there is abundant evidence supporting evolution.  Just because it is not as readily  apparent to the casual observer doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  

The casual observer would not say that the continents are moving apart either.  But plate tectonics is a pretty much an accepted fact in geology.

The casual observer would not see that stars change in their life-time (not counting the rare super-nova that might be observed with the naked eye).  But it's an accepted fact among astronomers that stars go through a 'life cycle' as they are formed, convert their hydrogen/helium fuel to heavier elements, then reach an end point of nova, super-nova, white dwarf, etc.  A life cycle that takes millions or billions of years, depending on the mass of the star.

The casual observer would not see that life changes over time.  But biologists and other scientists see evidence that this has happened in the past, and that it is occurring today.

The evidence of life's long history is not only found in the fossil record and in our genes, but in the variety of minerals we find on earth.  

up to two thirds of the more than 4,000 known types of minerals on Earth can be directly or indirectly linked to biological activity.
 

Minerals that we find on earth that we don't find on other planets in our solar system.

From here:
Mineral Kingdom has co-evolved with Life

Creationists could say 'Well, God made the earth special.  He/she made it that way'.  That may be a good enough explanation for the lay person, but in the scientific community that explanation is not acceptable or adequate.

When you examine all the pieces of the puzzle that science has uncovered in the past few hundred years, they all point to one thing --> evolution.

Denying it and calling it faith-based, like Lester is so fond of saying, simply doesn't carry any weight.  Since Darwin published his book 150 years ago, there has been no scientific evidence found that disproves evolution.  Quite the contrary - over time we find only more evidence supporting it.

If you care to refute evolution, present the hard evidence disproving it.  We're still waiting to see it.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 07:08 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fisher
sure there is lots of evidence for it, but we do not see it happening


The evidence for it usually can be interpreted within a creationist framework as well, effectively making it evidence for creation not evolution.



For example: The Fossil record

Evidence: Billions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth.

Evolutionist interpretation:

The lower buried fossils slowly turned into the higher buried fossils over a period of hundreds of millions of years.

Creationist interpretation:

There was a worldwide flood in which billions of living things were buried rapidly and turned to rock. This occurred about 4500 years or so ago.

Support for evolution:
1.The buried life forms have a tendency to be buried in a particular order though this is often not the case.

Support for creation:
1.The buried life forms were obviously buried rapidly as they are well preserved.
2.The sedimentary rock layers lack erosion features between layers.
3.Life lower down in the 'record' is not generally more or less complex than the life forms found higher up except in the imaginations of evolutionists BUT they are different.
4.Folded sedimentary layers show that supposed millions of years of sedimentation occurred at one time when all the layers were soft together.
5.Polystrata fossils fossilized through many rock layers could not have taken hundreds of millions of years or these creatures or trees would have rotted whilst waiting for further layers to be deposited on top over a very long period of time.

But it's an accepted fact among astronomers that stars go through a 'life cycle' as they are formed, convert their hydrogen/helium fuel to heavier elements, then reach an end point of nova, super-nova, white dwarf, etc.  A life cycle that takes millions or billions of years, depending on the mass of the star.


This is, of course, all hypothetical since nobody has ever seen a star being born but there are enough out there for each of us to own a trillion or so. Since there are so many, it is strange that we do not see them being formed. We do see them blow up occasionally but that does not automatically mean that they formed through natural processes. Evolutionist philosophy presumes that stars were born via natural processes but since there are so many of them, why can't we watch them being formed as clearly as we can watch some of them become super novas?

But biologists and other scientists see evidence that this has happened in the past, and that it is occurring today.


Presumably via the fossil record which we have already discussed. Change happens but it appears that there are limits.

Denying it and calling it faith-based, like Lester is so fond of saying, simply doesn't carry any weight.


Lester knows that what can't be observed is faith-based and is historical not scientifically repeatable nor observable.

Evidence is only interpreted within a pre-existing framework. It does not speak for itself.

there has been no scientific evidence found that disproves evolution.  Quite the contrary - over time we find only more evidence supporting it.


The fact that there are limits to variations disprove it. The evidence is clearly against evolution but evolutionists remain, for the most part, wilfully blind.





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:47 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

fisher
orion
Excellent answer Demon.  Just like saying 'I don't believe in gravity.  I accept it because it is a basic fact.'
Do you see dogs turning into cats....
Hahahahaha!

No. xD

That would trash the ToE in an instant.

Stop embarrassing yourself. Ask questions nicely if you don't know. Don't toss strawmen.
It is a "basic fact" which has never been proven,
Nothing in Science is proven. You're scientifically illiterate.
sure there is lots of evidence for it,
That's what Science deals with.

Evidence, explanations, predictions. That's all.
but we do not see it happening.
What? Cats turning into butterflies? No, we don't, and we never will.
yes we can breed wolves into different shapes and sizes of "dogs" which are still wolves because they can interbreed.
If you're shown two species that were one once and lost the ability to interbreed, will you shut up?
but can we breed cows into anything but differntly shaped cows.
Do you think cows care much about what you call them?




Lester
there has been no scientific evidence found that disproves evolution.  Quite the contrary - over time we find only more evidence supporting it.
The fact that there are limits to variations disprove it.
Lester, let me remind you of this:
Quote from wisp at 11:42 AM on November 23, 2009 :
Lester
wisp
Lester
and we believe that thus there are limits to variation.
If i start a thread about that, would you post? Because i don't know what you're talking about, and my guess is that you don't either.
Sure Wisp, anytime.
Thread started.

So, Lester, what are those limits to variation?

Please, let them be something factual, and nothing conceptual. Organisms don't know or care about what we call them. They don't deal with concepts. Stick to material limitations, please.

Thanks in advance.
You didn't answer. I started a thread so you could talk about it. You said you would.

Now shut up.


(Edited by wisp 11/25/2009 at 11:16 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:35 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
The Debater

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I used believe as a synoneme for accept.
Creation means any form of creation.
And Niether means you don't believe in creation or evolution.


-------
The Debater
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 4:07 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from The Debater at 10:07 PM on November 25, 2009 :
I used believe as a synoneme for accept.
In the context of this site, that would be a poor choice of synonym
Creation means any form of creation.
What point are you making here?
And Niether means you don't believe in creation or evolution.
OK, I think that most of the evolutionists here would be happy to agree that they believe[/] in [b]neither creationism nor evolution (but rather, accept evolution as fact). Don't make some childish attempt at manipulating words to try to make you argument, (I have a feeling) you'll lose.






-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 6:03 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
The Debater

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your right. I made a poor chioce of words.


-------
The Debater
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 6:57 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

His right?

What about his left?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:09 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:09 PM on November 25, 2009 :
His right?

What about his left?



"Right" as in "correct", not as in right hand or foot, lol.

Debater meant to say "you're right."  


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:23 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:47 AM on November 25, 2009 :
Fisher
sure there is lots of evidence for it, but we do not see it happening


The evidence for it usually can be interpreted within a creationist framework as well, effectively making it evidence for creation not evolution.



For example: The Fossil record

Evidence: Billions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth.

Evolutionist interpretation:

The lower buried fossils slowly turned into the higher buried fossils over a period of hundreds of millions of years.

Creationist interpretation:

There was a worldwide flood in which billions of living things were buried rapidly and turned to rock. This occurred about 4500 years or so ago.

Creationist interpretation falsified:

Written records from human civilizations are contemporaneous with the YEC timeframe, yet the civilizations did not seem to notice this 'wortld wide flood' which killed them all.

Further, the YEC deigns not to provide sufficient informaiton to fully understand why this is evidence for evolution - there is a progression in the fossil record, both in term sof geology and in terms of the flora and fauna present in the various strata.  

A single flood does not and cannot explain this progression.  To claim that it is just a matter of interpretation ois to lie though one's teeth or to engage in an act of deception.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:35 PM on November 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer
wisp
The Debater
Your right.
His right?

What about his left?
"Right" as in "correct", not as in right hand or foot, lol.

Debater meant to say "you're right."  
Reading literally is my God given left.

(Edited by wisp 11/26/2009 at 1:10 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:01 PM on November 26, 2009 | IP
The Debater

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Modern time dating techniegs are not as accurate as they seem. For example: Scientist dated a rock at around several million years old. Recently though scientist have determined that the same rock is only a couple thousand years old. The evidence behind this dicovery is that a gas (hydrogen i think it  was) was slowly leaking from the rock, and because the rock could only hold so much gas and from the rate gas is leaking the rock could only be a couple thousand years old.


-------
The Debater
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 4:32 PM on November 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do we have an obligation to respond to the same silly claims over and over and over and over and over again?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:42 PM on November 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Go and do your homework. Bring the source of your claim. The names or the Scientists. A link. SOMETHING!

I'll have an answer ready. But be serious. Don't just toss claims. Those are weasel words.


I can likewise say "Recently scientists have determined that all creationists are mentally challenged".


(Edited by wisp 11/27/2009 at 12:40 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:01 PM on November 26, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from The Debater at 10:32 PM on November 26, 2009 :
Modern time dating techniegs are not as accurate as they seem. For example: Scientist dated a rock at around several million years old. Recently though scientist have determined that the same rock is only a couple thousand years old. The evidence behind this dicovery is that a gas (hydrogen i think it  was) was slowly leaking from the rock, and because the rock could only hold so much gas and from the rate gas is leaking the rock could only be a couple thousand years old.

OK, let's try your technique of 'debating' then (I'll try to miss out the atrowshus spalign irrors thuo). Here goes:
It appears that someone delivered as fact that indeed no God exists. This is because the fact hat the bible is in fact, just a book, written by people. Now people are fallen (ever since drank some scrumpy) therfore all people are liars. This means that the bible is nothing but a book of lies. Therefore evolution must be true.
Go on, post some facts that disprove me; otherwise I win.
Alternatively, next time you post, actually post some evidence or we shall all point out that your father was a hamster and your mother smelled of elderberry. Now go away before we taunt you some more.





-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 5:11 PM on November 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For example: Scientist dated a rock at around several million years old. Recently though scientist have determined that the same rock is only a couple thousand years
old.


How about something more than your say so.  Provide details to this "story" so we can critically examine it.  Creationists are famous for misinterpreting evidence.  So let us look at your evidence and we'll talk about it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:35 AM on November 27, 2009 | IP
The Debater

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Check out the site listed above.


-------
The Debater
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 3:22 PM on December 2, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you know what an inclusion in lava is?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:58 PM on December 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, man! I mean scientists!

Show us real scientists dating a rock millions of years old, and then thousands.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:02 PM on December 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Check out the site listed above.

Yes, I see you're siting Dr. Austin's intentionally fradulent dating test.  It seems that he fudged the test results to try and discredit radiometric dating, and failed miserably.  Why do you feel you need to use false claims to support your point?

From here:

Fraud!

"This was not a "test" of Rb-Sr dating.
It is misleading for Austin to claim that he set out to "test" Rb/Sr isochron dating. The paper trail -- the 1988 Impact article -- documents that Austin knew he'd get a mantle age from whole-rock measurements of those lava flows, long before the ICR obtained a single rock sample of their own.

If isotopic dating methods are as unreliable as Austin would like us to believe, why did he have to rig his test -- by only selecting rock samples which were known in advance to fail it? If a mainstream scientist were to fix a test in this manner, their reputation would be demolished when that fact was uncovered.



The wrong meaning is assigned to the dates.
Before the Grand Canyon Dating Project began, in his 1988 Impact article, Austin admitted in print that the selected lava flows fell into two different stratigraphic stages. That is, the very information which he used to select the flows, also clearly indicates that they did not all occur at the same time. In his subsequent book (1994, p. 125), Austin indicated that his five data points came from four different lava flows plus an extracted "phenocryst" (large mineral which likely formed in the magma chamber and was not molten in the lava flow). We had known from the Impact articles that Austin's samples were not all cogenetic; years later we found out by his own admission that no two of them are so.

In fact, as discussed above, the selection of non-cogenetic samples is sometimes used intentionally by isotope geologists. It is known to be a way to have an isochron dating method "look back" beyond a recent event to an earlier event -- the age of the common source of the samples. Thus, it is misleading for Austin to pretend that his resulting isochron plot should be expected to represent the age of the flows themselves.

A geologist in my acquaintance suggested that this FAQ should be very short:

It should merely state that Austin has confirmed what mainstream geologists have known all along: that the lithospheric mantle underlying the Grand Canyon must be older than the Cardenas Basalt.

The mantle is the source of much of the sampled flows' material, and Austin's sampling technique matches the technique one would use to obtain a minimum for the age of the flows' source.


It's an insufficient case against isotope dating.
Austin (1992) suggests that he has "tested" the dating method. He claims that the false isochron, that he knew would result, is "unexpected." He goes as far as implying that all isotopic ages can be ignored when he suggests that nobody has ever "successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock." The first two claims are falsehoods, as shown above, and the third cannot be justified by ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.

Young-Earth creationists cannot escape the fact that a large majority of isotope dating results are well-aligned with mainstream predictions, and equally well-aligned with geological relationships which even young-earthers would accept. For example, intrusive formations consistently date as being younger than the formations that they cut across. A laundry-list of anomalous dates will not change that fact. That only shows that the methods sometimes fail, which is not in dispute.

If Austin wishes to make a case that all isotopic results are unreliable (which he desires to do, in order to prop up the timescale that he accepts for religious reasons), he is going to have to do better than he has done here. All the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project shows is that a sample selection geared to yield the age of the flows' source... apparently does yield the age of the flows' source."


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:46 AM on December 3, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.