Evolution sparks high level debate in Catholicism!!!

Have they ever observed the behavior of matter or
energy or atoms over a period of 4 billion years? Its all based on a false premise.
Click to expand...
You can observe it for a much shorter amount of time before you notice that the decay rate is constant. You don't have to watch it for 4 billion years, just like you don't have to watch your clock every second to know when an hour is passed.

The other thing about zircon is its impurities, especially uranium. The uranium-lead (U-Pb) system of dating rocks has been refined to great accuracy, and U-Pb zircon dating is now a precise tool for rocks as old as Earth itself, some 4.6 billion years. Zircon is good for this because it holds these elements tightly.
 
Ok, explain to me how you can know the age of something older than a million years.
A few hundred years, understandable, since you have tree rings, pyramids, etc.
But many say that Carbon-14 is inaccurate when measuring thousands of years.
 
Lawdog said:
Thats just what I am talking about. That system, Carbon-14, is based on a false premise.
Click to expand...
You know, my chemistry teacher would probably shoot you in the nuts right now if he heard you say that. As would I, and probably everyone else with a hint of intelligence. You are an insult to humanity.
 
Because the radioactive half-life of a given radioisotope is not affected by temperature, physical or chemical state, or any other influence of the environment outside the nucleus save direct particle interactions with the nucleus, then radioactive samples continue to decay at a predictable rate. If determinations or reasonable estimates of the original composition of a radioactive sample can be made, then the amounts of the radioisotopes present can provide a measurement of the time elapsed
 
I dont see how a predictable rate can be etablished when talking about time elapse in the measure of millions of years, since no control can be used as evidence to compare it with, not to mention that each substance acts differently.
 
Spidergoat, I came here to learn about the methods of psuedo-science, not listen to your childish posts. Please dont interfere if you cant help.
 
Lawdog said:
At least I dont feel insecure right now like you.
Click to expand...
How am I insecure? I don't believe that Carbon-14 is an accurate system, I fucking KNOW it's an accurate system of measuring an element's age.
Maybe you should join the modern world, and stop believing in bullshit biblical literalism.
 
Lapdog: "Spidergoat, I came here to learn about the methods of psuedo-science, not listen to your childish posts. Please dont interfere if you cant help."
*************
M*W: You're a liar. If you want to learn about pseudo-science, go to that forum. You're out of your league here.
 
When a "date" differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Experts cite hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain "bad" dates.

MW, shouldnt you be making yourself some herbal tea?
 
There are indeed many methods which the psuedo-scientists use to support their findings. For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was "too old," according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.
 
Last edited:
Ha!
So. You don't believe in carbon dating and, in fact, seem to think that dating anything older than a few hundred years is virtually impossible.

Fine. You're allowed to be a stubborn fool. No crime against that.
But, I find it hilarious that you still think that somehow you've managed to circumvent the fallacies inherent in all the other methods of dating and come up with an age of 1 to 10 million years.

So. O great amateur fundamentalist scientist, you.
How did you come up with that?
Fairy magic?
God told you?
Just saying the first number to come into what you call your mind?

Ha.
Man.
This is some funny shit.
 
Lawdog said:
Thats just the problem, how did they get that date? Have they ever observed the behavior of matter or
energy or atoms over a period of 4 billion years? Its all based on a false premise.
Click to expand...
Lawdog, do you suppose that gravity existed 1 or 10 million years ago?
Is that reasonable?
Do you suppose that people breathed oxygen 3000 years ago or that maybe they didn't need to breath then?
Is there any direct evidence that Jesus needed to poop? Did He ever poop??

Do you think you need to sleep tomorrow? Why plan a whole day making this assumption you will need to sleep? Hmmmm....

Anyway, "Its all based on a false premise." and what exactly would that be?
 
Well, it's reassuring the existence of people with a bit of common sense (I'm talking about George Coyne) in that paradigm of lies called the Catholic Church
 
§outh§tar said:
Is that sufficient reason to discard carbon dating - because "many say" so?
Click to expand...

Is that sufficient reason to accept carbon dating - because "many say" so? If people rely on past experiences, they can make great mistakes.
 
Can we try and get our facts right when arguing from a scientific basis:
spidergoat said:
The human race is even older than 30 million!
Click to expand...
Homo sapiens - modern man 180,000 years ago
Genus homo (homo habilis)- the first 'man' 2.4 million years ago
Genusaustralopithecus - 5 million years ago
Split of New World Monkeys from Old World Primates - 30 million years ago
I might just be prepared to entertain australopithecines as 'human': that still leaves a 25 million year discrepancy.
hapsburg said:
Carbon-14 dating system.
Retard.
Click to expand...
No. Carbon-14 is of no use for determining the age of anything much beyond 45,000 years. This may not alter your choice of the epithet retard, but it does make you look somewhere between foolish and sloppy.

Lawdog, I'm still waiting a reply to my earlier post please:
Lawdog, why do you think this fake evidence is being created? What is the motivation of those involved? Is it, in your view a co-ordinated conspiracy, or rather small groups, or individuals with discrete motives?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top