Originally posted by Jorge
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Mikeenders View PostNot the point. Stop being deliberately obtuse to suit your purposes. You are intelligent enough to read english. Peer review was brought up to thoroughly rebut your claim that you could dispense with the paper based on that single person you consider fringe. The whole point of peer review is to verify that thepeers consider the research at least worthy of being read and considered. has nothing to do with being right because its published.Last edited by Kbertsche; 12-09-2015, 09:52 AM."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostAnd this is effectively solipsism. solipsism says that there is no objective reality beyond your own self. By rejecting the mountains of evidence for the constancy of Decay rates, you are effectively saying that there is no way to ever know much of anything about the physical world. That the physical evidence is so unreliable and unpredictable as to prevent the possibility of knowing anything certain about them. The implications of THAT, given the strength of that evidence (that is, there are a lot of other things we tend to accept that are support by the same or even lesser evidence) logically and effectively ends up impacting most if not all knowledge outside your immediate self. ergo, it is in fact effective solopsism, but applied in an inconsistent and limited fashion.
For a non-YEC our correspondent certainly loves them YEC PRATTs.
Comment
-
"What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by JonF View PostScience doesn't do beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You ignored the fact that the basic laws of physics have been the same for the life of the Earth and well before. That means radiometric decay rates have not changed. That means the clock is right.
Then exactly what publication is it based on? There are no non-creationist publications proposing any change in the speed of light during the life of the Earth
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostIt must make you feel wonderful to know TWeb finally has another Creationist as scientifically ignorant and obnoxious as yourself.
barely scraped by the science test for young teenagers. Bwahahaha
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostOn TWeb you will find a pitiful collection of individuals-that-distort-God's-Word-at-will-to-further-their-personal-agenda. Nothing - NOTHING ... NEVER!!! - that you can say or present to that group will get them to grant you one iota of validity.
You have been warned.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by JonF View PostVarves. Speleothems. Corals. Stratigraphy. Ice cores. And more.
.
Like it or not spin on your head the only sound evidence there is or tens or hundred of millions is radioactive dating - nothing else sets dates that far back.
It's the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM that is constant.
Duh.Last edited by Mikeenders; 12-09-2015, 11:56 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mikeenders View Postlol......They seemingly hate your guts but in their true fundy fashion I am not even a YEC but because i dare to say YECs might have one point (or maybe because I dared to say regardless i hold to literalism) a few of them are acting like they caught rabies and the others are not far behind. SO on that you are correct. I'm not bothered by it though this aint my first rodeo although some of the Christians in the thread are a disgrace. Claiming to be able to read minds and side step not generalizing against other Christians. Wherever your treasure is there will your heart also be
As for "... i dare to say YECs might have one point ...", Biblical Creationists (aka YECs) have many points, not just "one". I myself have posted / linked to well over one hundred of them here on TWeb. It's there if people would just look (but they don't want to).
JorgeLast edited by Jorge; 12-09-2015, 11:55 AM.
Comment
-
Highlighting mine:Originally posted by Mikeenders View PostI didn't ignore anything. You as usual are distorting my views simply because I will not buy your silly unscientific premise that radioactive dating is not conceivably falsifiable.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostHehehe yeah, right ... so says Beagle Boy - the critter that
barely scraped by the science test for young teenagers. Bwahahaha
It was a period of civil discussion.
Various Natural Science denizens were talking about
education in the biological sciences, when some-one - I
can't remember who - posted a link to an on-line biology
high school exam from New Zealand. A few of us immediately
headed off to look.
The exam consisted of 20 questions, mostly of the multiple-choice
or fill-in-the-blank kind. Questions were picked randomly from a
much larger set. Nominal time for completing the test was half
an hour, but I doubt any of us took nearly that long; most of us
just flicked through it and posted our scores. I got 19/20 after
tripping over a question about an enzyme I'd never heard of, but
which was presumably covered by the school syllabus. I think
rogue got 20/20, but it may have been Sylas. HMS_Beagle did the
whole thing in about five minutes and got 17/20 or thereabouts.
Jorge posted he didn't have enough time to do the entire
test - he only had 10 minutes to spare - but he had tried
the first seven questions and got them all right. Jorge then
started mocking HMS_Beagle for only getting 85% on a high-school
biology test, until some-one - it may have been me - pointed
out that HMS_Beagle had achieved his 85% in less time than it had
taken Jorge to accumulate 35%. Jorge naturally claimed that
if he'd had time to answer all the question - which of course
he had - he would have got 100%. Several people suggested
that Jorge retake the test and post a screenshot of his final
score, but of course Jorge never did, repeatedly claiming a
lack of time. In fact he spent so much time making excuses
and continuing to mock HMS_Beagle that he could have done
the whole test several times over.
Since that day, Jorge has occasionally tried to tweak HMS_Beagle's tail
by mentioning that HMS_Beagle didn't get a perfect score on a high-school
test. Of course Jorge never mentions that he took twice as
long as HMS_Beagle to score half as much. Everyone else ignores him,
being fully aware that Jorge has less credibility than Muhammed
Saeed al-Sahaf.
RoyJorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by theophilus View PostIf all science is tentative then the belief that the fossils are millions of years old must be tentative as well.
Doesn't mean as they try to strawman twist that you throw out anything but that you be open to the possibility and therefore study it first before claiming its no point at all
But they do what they accuse YEC fundies of doing - declare their understanding is impossible to even conceive of being wrong, needing significant adjusting oe even questioning EVER. if next year or the next they find a blade of a plant ---lol--- dating back 200 million years in absolutely any state they will just say er....derrr..err that proves that it can last that long.
you do the independent research when you make these claims. You don't throw out radioactive decay as they like to distort and fabricate that i am saying. If you claim that nothing can raise a question or a challenge to radiometric dating you are saying it is unfalsifiable and when you go there you are fundy that doesn't understand science no matter how much you beg you do..
Comment
-
Originally posted by JonF View PostNope. Alpha decay (and its variations) and beta decay (and its variations) and electron capture decay each depend on very differnet fundamental mechanisms.
are all the atheist here teenagers or just in this thread?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mikeenders View PostYou can beg bread all you wish or you can fantasize like your pals that any mainstream scientist use anything called a Coral clock...lol.... (to main ways of using corals to date things is projecting based on growth or doing radioactive dating but that not a "coral clock" but still radiometric datingJorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
Comment