Chipan Wrote:good point, but lets talk about how this applies to evelution. in order for evelution to work they must prove the earth is millions of years old. how do they do this? using various dating methods. though there have been many cases that have proven them to be inaccurate. here's one example: samples were taken from a lava dome on mt st helens and radio dated them using potassium-argon in 1986. they got ages of 340,000 to 2.8 million years old on rocks only 10 years old. what's their explination? this is it "considerins that the half-life of potassium-40 is fairly long (1,250 million years) the potassium-argon method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old. a few thousand years are not enough time for argon 40 to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be dectected and quantified." what does that mean? well lets play the what if game. what if the earth was around 6,000 years old? well then this method wouldn't be accurate on any rock that exists according to their own description. well what about carbon dating? well that is used on organic substances, not rocks, and is not accurate after 50,000 years because unlike potassium 40, carbon 14 has a much lower half-life and after 50,000 years, all the carbon 14 in a substance would be gone, decayed into nitrogen. therefore, cannot possibly give the dates necessary for evolution. it's bad science.So, you acknowledge people's critics that shot down your argument and just put it behind your back, moving your argument elsewhere? Is this what you call a debate? Its a fucking monologue. Anyway, since you didn't provide a source for your claim about mt st Helens, I decided to search for it and surprise surprise, here is the first 3 links:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...adiodating
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ting-prove
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm
Yeah, no bias on those sites. But here, here is an article with actual scientific sources(I could search for more, but I suspect you will just deflect it and move the goalpost):
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_...ite_kh.htm
I guess lying is ok as long as you do it for jeebus
Chipan Wrote:apparently those of you don't know what science is. this is how it works, you come up with a hypothesis, then you do an experiment to prove it wrong, or possibly right. if the experiment doesn't work, it's wrong. if it does work it could be right, but you could later disprove it with another experiment so we can only go so far when proving something right. evelution, however, cannot be experimented because we don't have millions of years to observe these things and we don't exactly understand how life started in the first place. it's an incomplete theory and no one can deny that. but this theory can't even get close to be proven b/c it can't even make it past the guessing stage. therefore evolution isn't science at all, it's just a guess that some scientists think is most likely how the universe, our plannet, life began. and i'm not against science, i love science and going against evolution doesn't hold science back b/c guessing how the universe began doesn't improve science at all nor does it benifit humanity except for athiests to call every theist stupid cuz they don't believe the guesses of scientists. if you want to benifit humanity, focus on the future, not on the past. this guess work is a waste of time cuz there's no way to even prove it.
Are you serious? That is not the scientific method, the scientific method is as follows:
1- You have a problem.
2- You search for literature about that problem.
3- You create a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.
4- You test that hypothesis, if fails, return to step 2.
5- If the test proves the hypothesis submit it in a paper in a scientific venue to be analysed by your peers, so that they can repeat the processes you used to prove your hypothesis.
6- If all goes ok, hope for a nobel prize nomination
Besides, in order to get to understand the future, you should analize the past, also this is not an atheist scientists conspiracy, I know of many theist scientists that accept evolution, and that doesn't impede their belief in god. Its just a YEC stupidity manifest. Infact I live in a country 90% catholic and they accept evolution.
One more thing, do you realise that even if evolution isn't true, you did nothing to prove your fabled delusion of a sky-daddy? Wanting very much for it to exist won't do, and the bible is only proof of bronze-age ignorance.
