Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 20, 2025, 7:13 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
creationist tried to tell me embrology doesn't support evolution.
#41
RE: creationist tried to tell me embrology doesn't support evolution.
(April 16, 2013 at 1:54 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The age of the earth is confirmed by so many pieces of evidence that you would have to be a blinkered moron to still believe in a young earth if you have any science knowledge at all.

I have a great deal of scientific knowledge and I see no reason at all to believe the Earth is billions of years old, perhaps you can enlighten me. Smile

Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_ag...t_creation

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/...nolgy.html

You don’t think it’s a bit...well moronic to try and prove your position using user-generated wiki websites?

Quote: My favorite has to be zircon crystals that form deep in the earth mantle, then are raised by mountain forming, eroded down by weathering then by subduction at plate boundries taken back into the earth mantle where each time this happens leaving a new layer of zircon is added, like a very slow growing onion. Some of them have a lot of layers.

That’s interesting that Zircon crystals are one of your favorite lines of evidence, it’s one of mine too. Since the zircon dating method is based on the radiometric decay of Uranium, how do you know that the radiometric decay rate of Uranium has been uniform throughout Earth’s history?
I am sure, since you have made it quite clear that you are not a moron (and apparently I am a moron since I have both a scientific background and still believe in the Biblical age given for the Earth), that you are aware that a byproduct of Uranium decay is Helium. I am also sure that you are aware that Helium diffuses out of the Zircon crystals over time. Can you point me to a study that empirically measured the diffusion rate of Helium to be consistent with the supposed ages of the crystals? All the studies I can find that have measured this diffusion rate measure a diffusion rate consistent with a crystal of only 6,000 years old, not billions of years old. Apparently we have one decay rate suggesting the crystals are billions of years old, and a second empirically measurable decay rate (Helium diffusion) that suggests the crystals are 6,000 years old; forgive me, but that hardly seems to be conclusive evidence demonstrating that the Earth is billions of years old. Perhaps you have some better evidence you’d like to present? Thank you! Big Grin
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: creationist tried to tell me embrology doesn't support evolution. - by Statler Waldorf - April 16, 2013 at 2:37 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Some people believe that gravity doesn't exist notimportant1234 75 13917 October 19, 2017 at 11:04 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Another one flying in the faces of creationist - Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens had sex abaris 8 2210 June 23, 2015 at 4:39 am
Last Post: Cyberman
  Tell Us Something We Didn't Know Minimalist 23 6442 September 10, 2014 at 1:05 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  Creationist Vs Scientist On Why Human Intelligence Is Declining Gooders1002 0 1303 March 29, 2014 at 1:08 pm
Last Post: Gooders1002
  It doesn’t matter what neuroscience has to say Mudhammam 11 4281 February 9, 2014 at 2:26 pm
Last Post: Chad32
  Understanding the Creationist Propaganda Model Michael Schubert 33 12039 July 20, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  interviewing a creationist (painful) jackman 26 13153 June 21, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Last Post: liam
  Time lapse video from the ISS - It doesn't get any better than this! orogenicman 2 1789 November 15, 2011 at 3:03 am
Last Post: KichigaiNeko



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)