Recent Findings...Again pointing to an old erath.
- Thread starter TheBear
- Start date
If you really study geology you should know that carbon dating would be utterly useless for dating meteor strikes. Anyway, about the constancy of the decay rates from this site:
I've brought this same observations up once before when a creationists asked about the constancy of radioactive decay. I never got a reply though. Maybe I'll be more lucky this time.
Choccy
Upvote
0
MSBS
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2002
- 1,860
- 103
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Great.....research according to Susan. Doesn't cost anything, but of course you get absolutly 100% no results whatsoever. Nothing testable and nothing predicted.
Susan, it's people like you that keep me a long way away from churches.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
No, I think she's saying something more like, "I'll only believe men who claim they got their info from God."
Upvote
0
As worthless as Susans' input on these forums usually is, we should definitely respect her opinion. I respect the girl for being so strong in her opinion, even with all the critisicism of the ridiculouly silly comments she makes. I don't know if I could stand by my convictions after they are undisputibely and irrefutable proven wrong. Susan, you are pretty young i guess, 13 or so?? Hopefully as you grow older you will become a little more less rigid in your beliefs and try to use your own brain to analyze information, and not look at everything from the viewpoint of the bible. Look at is this way, that long ago, the writers getting their info from "god" would not have been able to write all the info needed to explain creation...and it would have just been laughed off by anyone reading the bible at that time. So obviously they would have used symbolism. (now mind you i don't believe the bible, i am just trying to convince you that it is possible that it is symbolic, if it is true)
Upvote
0
Upon first impression of Susan's input, I also thought she was about 12, or so. But, she has indicated that she is 18. Look at her profile info.
Susan,
I don't know what to say, except maybe you should not be posting in the science forums until you have a little more knowledge about what you are trying to argue against. I'm not saying this to be mean or anything, but you do come across as completely uneducated on what we are talking about. Your 'arguments' would have a lot more clout if you at least read the entire articles you are trying to debunk and were able to reply in direct correlation to the points raised.
If you are a new Christian, I would suggest that you stay focused in the Gospels, Christian fellowship, and things like that.
John
Susan,
I don't know what to say, except maybe you should not be posting in the science forums until you have a little more knowledge about what you are trying to argue against. I'm not saying this to be mean or anything, but you do come across as completely uneducated on what we are talking about. Your 'arguments' would have a lot more clout if you at least read the entire articles you are trying to debunk and were able to reply in direct correlation to the points raised.
If you are a new Christian, I would suggest that you stay focused in the Gospels, Christian fellowship, and things like that.
John
Upvote
0
That the field of geology is nothing but guesswork or pure speculation. Go back and re-read what I said.
A lot t in science starts off as assumptions, but that is just the first phase. The assumptions are then tested, attacked, scrutinized and put through the fire of peer review. You say you are studying geology in school, and they have not covered these basics? I hope you are not paying anything for this 'education'.
(now TheBear dislikes me strongly I'm sure!)
Not at all, itinerant.
Upvote
0
I still find it utterly amazing how the ignorant layman still seems to think they know so much more about geology than people who have studied and worked in the field most of their lives (just wondering if any of our would-be geologists have actually read the study in the Aug 23 issue of Science).
Just goes to show you that it's incredibly easy to attack something from a position of ignorance, but more often than not, you'll look pretty foolish for doing so.
Just goes to show you that it's incredibly easy to attack something from a position of ignorance, but more often than not, you'll look pretty foolish for doing so.
Upvote
0
Actually, you said it was based on guesses, as far as I can tell going back through the thread. Now, as to assumptions, don't you think there is such a thing as a VALID assumption? Or do you go through life making no assumptions at all?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
npetreley...and responding to a scientific article with "They got it all wrong" is mature and intellectually honest
BTW...this site has actual pictures and radar images of impact sites all over the world...interesting stuff http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/macha.htm
BTW...this site has actual pictures and radar images of impact sites all over the world...interesting stuff http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/macha.htm
Upvote
0
npetreley...
Yeah, the term "worthless" is a sure sign of respect
Well, maybe it is strong, but I have yet to see any of her comments to actually have any iota of intelligent information. And I won't falsely claim it does just because I respect someones right to an opinion.
Yeah, the term "worthless" is a sure sign of respect
Well, maybe it is strong, but I have yet to see any of her comments to actually have any iota of intelligent information. And I won't falsely claim it does just because I respect someones right to an opinion.
Upvote
0
The funny thing about this thread is that, contrary to the implication of the subject line, the article doesn't give any additional evidence of an old earth. It hypothesizes that an asteroid hit the earth at some point in time. That's all the article is about.
The fact that they estimated the date of the impact to be X billion years ago only shows that they use and believe the same dating techniques they use and believe for dating anything, whether it would be a rock with spherules or any other rock. So the only new information is that there's evidence an asteroid impact may have occurred that we formerly didn't know about.
The fact that they estimated the date of the impact to be X billion years ago only shows that they use and believe the same dating techniques they use and believe for dating anything, whether it would be a rock with spherules or any other rock. So the only new information is that there's evidence an asteroid impact may have occurred that we formerly didn't know about.
Upvote
0
Um -- now, bear with me because I'm shooting in the dark here -- I'm guessing they exist because there was an impact, maybe?
By the way, there is no impact crater for the asteroid in the article.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Rize
Well-Known Member
Wow... are there any Christians on this forum that know anything about any of this? This incident is not really different than any of the others that have been dismissed by creation scientists (*puts on flame proof suit*). Dismissed as providing evidence of an old earth rather.
I think the most difficult evidence for a young earth is in astronomy. I'm certainly no expert on any of this, but I would wager that neither are any of the "armchair" scientists on the forums either.
Just out of curiosity, how do scientists explain those supposedly conflicting radiometric dates? Any of you want to take a crack at it?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_geology.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n3_date-dilemma.asp
I think the most difficult evidence for a young earth is in astronomy. I'm certainly no expert on any of this, but I would wager that neither are any of the "armchair" scientists on the forums either.
Just out of curiosity, how do scientists explain those supposedly conflicting radiometric dates? Any of you want to take a crack at it?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_geology.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n3_date-dilemma.asp
Upvote
0
kaotic
Learn physics
if you want to find real answers to astronomy goto http://search.spacelink.nasa.gov/
Upvote
0
kaotic
Learn physics
Everything you read on http://www.answersingenesis.org/ (not credible) doesn't matter cause nasa and the goverment and colleges and other scientist have said that the universe is between 10-20 billion years old. And the earth 4.5 nothing can change this until there is real evidence that the earth is young Since there isn't any evidence of.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Rize
Well-Known Member
I love how you make these blanket statements
"Everything over here is not credible, but everything here is. These guys said this is true so the guys over here must be wrong."
I realize there are arguments underlying those beliefs, but there are counter arguments as well.Ultimately, you're putting your faith in one side or the other.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
