Carbon Dating Lab Got Owned by AiG

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"bashing science"

I don't know how I stumbled into this part of the forum again but it's not bashing science. It's bashing a THEORY. There are many scientists that don't believe in evolution and would side more with AIG. Like npetreley says though it really becomes a pride thing half the time on this topic. That's why I try not to post here since people don't refute creationism they just insult it. That isn't science either to let everyone know.

 

[jon1101]

That's why I try not to post here since people don't refute creationism they just insult it. That isn't science either to let everyone know.

I have yet to even find creationism. Would you please point me to this oft-alleged scientific theory of creationism? Thanks.

-jon

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Would you please point me to this oft-alleged scientific theory of creationism?

Just go to many of the Creation sites with a **non insulting attitude** and an **open mind** and just a search for the **truth**. Of course if your not Christian it's going to be much harder to believe it but there are plenty of nonchristian scientists that believe in Creation also. Of course the problem is if your athiest of course you have to believe in evolution. If there is a higher power that created it all you would be wrong in being an athiest. See the problem and why there isn't much support for Creation in the secular world? Because if they support Creation they are going to support some kind of higher power since that would only be logical.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by Project 86
Would you please point me to this oft-alleged scientific theory of creationism?

Just go to many of the Creation sites with a **non insulting attitude** and an **open mind** and just a search for the **truth**. Of course if your not Christian it's going to be much harder to believe it but there are plenty of nonchristian scientists that believe in Creation also. Of course the problem is if your athiest of course you have to believe in evolution. If there is a higher power that created it all you would be wrong in being an athiest. See the problem and why there isn't much support for Creation in the secular world? Because if they support Creation they are going to support some kind of higher power since that would only be logical.

P86...

CTI is a Christian, just because someone is not a YEC does not get them sent to hell you know.

 

[choccy]

Of course if your not Christian it's going to be much harder to believe it but there are plenty of nonchristian scientists that believe in Creation also.

Can you name one.

Choccy

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Chris H
AIG really makes Christians look extremely stupid.

They could do better things for the body of christ than bashing science.

Chris H

I see we're off to a good start at Christian Forums.

1) Don't make blanket statements about what all Christians believe.

- You will be proven wrong.


2) Keep the forum rules.

- One that comes to mind is rule #2.

You will not post any topic that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. This will include any new user with less than 50 posts starting a "discretionable" topic - i.e. a topic not suitable for children. This will also include posts that put down Christianity in general or any posts considered as blasphemy by staff (this is a CHRISTIAN FORUMS site), or posts that put down another Christian group or denomination. This includes links to websites in profiles and signatures.

Have a nice day.

 

[RufusAtticus]

TheBear,

Chris H is a christian, at least his profile and posts indicates that. I think by "they" he is refering to AiG.

 

[Chris H]

Ahh. I spoke a little too rashly, I guess. I do have a real problem with the ways that AIG presents things sometimes, but I will try to be more "peaceable" in the future.

Chris.

 

[Chris H]

And I'm perfectly willing to accept YEC's as brothers in Christ. The guy I teach sunday school with is sort of a YEC.

Chris

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Project 86
There are many scientists that don't believe in evolution and would side more with AIG.

There are also many scientists who vote for Democrats. Does that make the Democratic party scientific? No, of course not. Political parties aren't scientific. The same goes with religious beliefs. I have yet to encounter a single person, including scientists, who believes in special creation for anything other than religious reasons. As such, your appeal to authority is misplaced. That dog just won't hunt.

 

[Chris H]

On what Basis do they make this claim?

Project 86, if they have answers that refute evolution the world is waiting to hear them.

Chris

 

[TheBear]

I'll give 100 blessing points to the first person who posts the accuracy, (margine of error), and chronological range of C-14 dating method.

Let me just say that there is a wide variety of dating methods, with varrying degrees of accuracy and chronological range, available to archaeologists and geologists.

Some are as follows -

Radiometric dating:
- K-Ar Method
- Rb-Sr Method
- U or Th-Pb Methods
- Carbon-14 Method

There is also:
- Obsidian dating
- Dendrochronology
- Termo-remanent maganism
- Termolumionescence
- Fluorine testing
- Pollen Analysis
- Varve Counting
- Optical Dating

There are other dating methods used, but these should be sufficient enough to dismiss any "House of Cards" notion. Today, archaeologists don't have to worry about the accuracy of any single dating method, any more than we have to worry about the theories of electricity, to run our computers.

John

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Project 86
"bashing science"

I don't know how I stumbled into this part of the forum again but it's not bashing science. It's bashing a THEORY. There are many scientists that don't believe in evolution and would side more with AIG. Like npetreley says though it really becomes a pride thing half the time on this topic. That's why I try not to post here since people don't refute creationism they just insult it. That isn't science either to let everyone know.

I'll have to get my "THEORY" post..... Be right back!

 

[TheBear]

Here's how it works in the scientific community. (roughly)

When observations and measurements are made by a scientist, he/she may develope a hypothesis, based on interpretation of the data. If so, the scientist 'tests' his/her hypothesis by trying to disprove it. When satisfied, confidence gets higher, and the hypothesis is then tested by his/her colleagues, again trying to disprove it. When satisfied at this point, confidence gets even higher, and the hypothesis is sent to a board of referees, who look at various methods used, flaws in testing procedures, etc. When accepted at this level, confidence begins to soar, and the hypothesis is published in international journals, to be scrutinized by worldwide scientific peers. If accepted at this level, confidence goes through the roof, and just maybe, it will earn the title of a scientific 'theory'.

In the scientific community, a 'theory' is extremely high in the confidence level, and should not be confused with the layman's term of a theory, (which could mean some half-baked idea, speculation, or guesswork).

So, in the context of science, to say, 'It's only a theory', is akin to refering to an athlete as 'only a Gold Medal winner'.



John

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by Project 86
Would you please point me to this oft-alleged scientific theory of creationism?

Just go to many of the Creation sites with a **non insulting attitude** and an **open mind** and just a search for the **truth**. Of course if your not Christian it's going to be much harder to believe it but there are plenty of nonchristian scientists that believe in Creation also. Of course the problem is if your athiest of course you have to believe in evolution. If there is a higher power that created it all you would be wrong in being an athiest. See the problem and why there isn't much support for Creation in the secular world? Because if they support Creation they are going to support some kind of higher power since that would only be logical.

I was a big AiG fan for a long time. Then I re-evaluated them with an open mind in search of truth and found nothing. Please, point me to a published 'theory of creationism.'

Oh, I am a Christian and was a creationist until I reconsidered and found it wanting.

-jon

 

[Finrod]

Originally posted by Project 86
"bashing science"

I don't know how I stumbled into this part of the forum again but it's not bashing science. It's bashing a THEORY. There are many scientists that don't believe in evolution and would side more with AIG. Like npetreley says though it really becomes a pride thing half the time on this topic. That's why I try not to post here since people don't refute creationism they just insult it. That isn't science either to let everyone know.

You're playing off the dual meaning of the word theory. There is a difference between scientific theories, like cell theory, and Joe's theory on why Tina and Ted broke up.

 

[Morat]

There are many scientists that don't believe in evolution and would side more with AIG

  I've found that, if you ask for them,  these "scientists" break down into three main categories:

1) Dead.

2) Biblical literalists lacking even a tangential expertise (dentists and electrical engineers and such).

3) (The smallest category) Biblical literalists with a tangential education in a relevant field. A tiny percentage of these (like Jonathan Wells) actually have an education in the correct field.

  It's odd how that works, eh?

 

 

 

[Chris H]

Actually, I think Wells was a staunch creationist before he went into grad school.

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Actually, most of the dead "creationist" scientists would have had views more like those of Hugh Ross. Perhaps the most respected American creationist was Louis Agizzas (last name spelled wrong, I know) who really believed in an old earth.

Not to mention Lord Kelvin who believed in an old earth as well.

Chris

 

[Sky]

It's spelled Agassiz. And I don't know of any YEC's who have accomplished anything in science. Probably because YEC's don't believe in real science.