Questions about Evolutionism vs. Creationsim

[MusicalElf11]

@MusicalElf,

Doing allright, the kid's sick but getting better. Gotta get back to work tomorrow and not feeling like it yet

Haha, I feel ya. Same with me and more statistics due tomorrow. Why can't weekends be longer?
Poor kid, it's rough to be sick in the middle of summer.

[GUBU]

Haha, no I'm not going to try to prove anything I believe unless you ask.

Thank fuck. I got sick of listening to you creatards trying to "prove" your bullshit a long time ago.

[Cyberman]

The difference between scientific assumptions and apologetic ones is the former then go on to test those assumptions; while the latter write "QED" on theirs and send them out into the creationist rumour mill, where they get sent round over and over again with zero fact-checking.

[downbeatplumb]

I guess a home schooled American. Only those are so ignorant/dismissive of facts.

[MusicalElf11]

@MusicalElf,

There is a lot wrong with your statements, but can you clear something up first - you are stating the half lifes for decays of three isotopes (U238, K40, C14) and you seem to be saying that they should all be the same if radiometric dating were to work? That makes no sense, so I wonder what you are thinking here. Mentioning C14 as a dating method for the age of the earth is silly as well because it is too short-lived for that.

That's... a very good point. I should have checked that before I sent it out. For some reason, while typing out my reasoning, that seemed to make sense to me, but you're right--that makes no sense. Of course the elements would have different half-lives, because they're different elements. (It wasn't something that was in my textbook either (where most of the other information came from), just something I came up with on the spot.)

[Astonished]

I guess a home schooled American. Only those are so ignorant/dismissive of facts.

Oh, come on, they come from more places than that.

[brewer]

@MusicalElf,

There is a lot wrong with your statements, but can you clear something up first - you are stating the half lifes for decays of three isotopes (U238, K40, C14) and you seem to be saying that they should all be the same if radiometric dating were to work? That makes no sense, so I wonder what you are thinking here. Mentioning C14 as a dating method for the age of the earth is silly as well because it is too short-lived for that.

That's... a very good point. I should have checked that before I sent it out. For some reason, while typing out my reasoning, that seemed to make sense to me, but you're right--that makes no sense. Of course the elements would have different half-lives, because they're different elements. (It wasn't something that was in my textbook either (where most of the other information came from), just something I came up with on the spot.)

bold mine

Author? Please.

[Astonished]

Here's a challenge I'd love to see accepted: If you were so confident in creationism or young earth or whatever, would you put your life on the line and trust either yourself or the leading proponents of your position to defend you successfully against science? Let's hypothetically say that your belief in an afterlife is not a factor, just to be fair.

[DogmaticDownSouth]

@MusicalElf11

First of all I will try not to launch an ad hominem attack at you. People believe things for good and bad reasons and when you explained your reasoning much of it was unsound. That being said, I'll take your original statement on good faith that you want our answers to a question.

1. Genesis is a sorry written a few thousand years ago. The people who wrote it did not use the same metric of time that we did, but my study of it gives me no reason to believe it was any different then the 24 hours we use today. Of course if it meant sun up to down then if the earth was created before the sun then sun up to down must have no meaning? Since every bit of independently corroborated evidence does not point to that sequence we must assume that this story starts with an error.
2. Multiple lines of evidence all point to approximately 4.5 billion years ago. No single test Is perfect, but multiple independent and reproducible examinations leading to the same conclusion very strongly implies the veracity of it and there I accept it as the most likely explaination.
3 taxonomically we are a genus of ape. That being said again multiple lines of evidence including genetic markers, fossil records, and current mitochondrial DNA evidence all demonstrate this. This is the same techniques used for evaluation of other species of animals and has been verified there and here. Your post on DNA is fundamentally flawed. I understand you are a film major so biology may not have interest to you, however if you want to understand this subject I would suggest evaluating sources that don't have a vested interest in your theological beliefs but rather look at the information as independently as possible.

4. Was a character in a story that all available data indicates is fictional. There fore not historical.

Anyway hope that helps.