archaeologist
Well-Known Member
read your posts again---all you have given is unsubstatntiated claims without examples to prove your case.
personal attacks and insults ignored.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hey - if you actually took time to read my threads/posts on this topic you'll see I have backed up the statement about the Creationists not doing any science. I have started entire threads on this topic.
It's not my fault you are incapable of understanding science or even what science is. You have a truly appalling level of science knowledge and seemingly no ability to follow even simple arguments toward that end.
again persoanl attacks ignored. ...
you have provided no proof for your statements, and if you have over the last few years then it should be easy for you to post more.
It is not a personal attack to say you have trouble following science arguments - it is patently a fact. Your struggles to handle even high school math/physics understanding in the radiodating thread a week or so ago highlighted this fact. You obviously not only did not learn any science past high school - you forgot even the stuff you must have been through. This is not an insult, many many people are just like you in this regard - scientifically lost at sea.
still no links to backup their claims--empty words then
Touché!Why do want links archie? It's common knowledge!
Quiz away.
LOL high school level. You realize Kerr is a tenured prof of physics at a respected institution? Not to brag for him or anything, but it's safe to say he's done more actual research than the entirety of creation science the last 30 years
Please provide us links to credible sources that back up your claim that Kerr Metric is being led astray or being deceived. Otherwise, these are just empty words.but it also provides an example and warning that even the educated are not immune from being led astray or from being deceived.
So... in order to demonstrate that the ICR people are doing science, you ask whether a graph they made leads to their conclusions? Given that their graph clearly indicates that creationism is right and old-age is wrong, wouldn't it be better to examine the source of the data or the technique used to calculate the data points?The purpose of this quiz is to test if you could read scientific diagram with an understanding about at a high school level.
The source of question is from an ICR research paper:
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf
The question diagram is on this link:
http://s188.photobucket.com/albums/z291/Rockpicker_2007/?action=view¤t=Picture2.png
Question 1 (high school level): Based on this diagram, is the argument of a young earth valid?
Question 2 (optional, but at a college level): Name one problem about the data of Jemez Zircon?
If you think the question is not fair, please say so.
----------
This quiz stuff is only a show. The real argument demonstrated here is that ICR people ARE doing real science.
How this can be claimed as "scientific" is beyond me, though I'm sure the pretty graph looks very impressive to nonscientists! The whole article looks like it was designed to convince lay-people without giving even remotely enough information for an expert in the field to BEGIN to evaluate the claims being made.Additional laboratory measurements and modeling studies of helium diffusion in zircon are expected to lead to a further refinement of the creationist model. The data of Fig. 2 indicate an age between 4,000 and 14,000 years since the helium began to diffuse from the zircons. This is far short of the 1.5 billion year evolutionist age! We believe that the final results will resoundingly support our hypothesis concerning diffusion and radiogenic helium.
The first question should be pretty easy for you. As I said, it is only a high school level question.So... in order to demonstrate that the ICR people are doing science, you ask whether a graph they made leads to their conclusions? Given that their graph clearly indicates that creationism is right and old-age is wrong, wouldn't it be better to examine the source of the data or the technique used to calculate the data points?
Further, I notice that the graph itself contains no error bars and that the article itself only mentions the figure in passing giving absolutely no detail on the calculations used, the source of the data or the estimated error in the data points. Here is the text regarding figure 2:
How this can be claimed as "scientific" is beyond me, though I'm sure the pretty graph looks very impressive to nonscientists! The whole article looks like it was designed to convince lay-people without giving even remotely enough information for an expert in the field to BEGIN to evaluate the claims being made.
Making claims is darned easy, but if this is the level of the articles being published by ICR, I'm not supprised they don't even TRY to submit to scientific peer-reviewed journals.
The purpose of this quiz is to test if you could read scientific diagram with an understanding about at a high school level.
The source of question is from an ICR research paper:
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf
The question diagram is on this link:
http://s188.photobucket.com/albums/z291/Rockpicker_2007/?action=view¤t=Picture2.png
Question 1 (high school level): Based on this diagram, is the argument of a young earth valid?
Question 2 (optional, but at a college level): Name one problem about the data of Jemez Zircon?
If you think the question is not fair, please say so.
----------
This quiz stuff is only a show. The real argument demonstrated here is that ICR people ARE doing real science.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?