A mortal blow to Young Earth creationism

ThatOwlWoman said:
My guess is that he got all those links from a creationist site. The Science Daily article was from 2017. They don't understand what they're reading.

I could not care less if he wants to believe that some sky dude created everything. My only objection is when they try to use it to refute first this science, then *all* science. That's how we end up with a pandemic killing idiots who think vaccines are witchcraft or some other nonsense.
Click to expand...

Outside of the fundamentalist American Protestant tradition, reading the Torah literally is even bad Christian theology.

At this point we can say that the rightwing is practicing both scientific illiteracy and bad Christian theology.
 
Wolverine said:
Actually I have no problem with what they say it's still flawed moron!
Click to expand...

Maybe you should call Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford universities and tell them they should stop doing radioactive isotope analysis because you have discovered it is all a scam.
 
Hello Dutch Uncle
Dutch Uncle said:
It is an odd transition from the nation that put mankind on the Moon to shift over to "The Moon landing was faked" and other anti-science beliefs.

Is it any wonder that those who are anti-science end up in the lower end of the economic scale?
Click to expand...

With notable exceptions such as televangelists.
 
Wolverine said:
So before writing people wrote stories about creation?:laugh:
Science is simply the study of what God created!
Click to expand...

The third most important person in Christianity after Jesus and Paul (Saint Augustine) maintained that the Bible needs to be periodically reinterpreted in light of new knowledge.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
My guess is that he got all those links from a creationist site. The Science Daily article was from 2017. They don't understand what they're reading.

I could not care less if he wants to believe that some sky dude created everything. My only objection is when they try to use it to refute first this science, then *all* science. That's how we end up with a pandemic killing idiots who think vaccines are witchcraft or some other nonsense.
Click to expand...

Science refutes itself all the time, the dating method has flaws!
 
Cypress said:
Now you are just spewing gibberish and making vague and nebulous declaratory statements, because you not fundamentally understand how radiometric dating works
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.
Cypress said:
Like I said, the radiometric clock will not work unless the isotope distribution in the medium of interest has been isolated from interaction with the environment, aka such as when the rock lithifies, the mineral crystalizes, or the body/organic matter stops metabolizing..
Click to expand...
Making shit up isn't helping you. Buzzword fallacies. There is no 'radiometric clock'. Isotopes are not necessarily radioactive.

Claims of accurate measurement over billions of years is complete hooey. There is no reference point. Making up numbers is a fallacy.
 
Wolverine said:
Most scientists today believe that life has existed on the earth for billions of years.
Click to expand...
You don't get to speak for most scientists. You only get to speak for you.
Wolverine said:
This belief in long ages for the earth and the existence of life is derived largely from radiometric dating.
Click to expand...
No reference point.
Wolverine said:
These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock and inferring <----(look at this word) an age based on this ratio.
Click to expand...
Inferring is just another word for guessing here.
Wolverine said:
This age is computed under the assumption <--(Look at this word) that the parent substance (say, uranium) gradually decays to the daughter substance (say, lead), so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be.
Click to expand...
Assumption is just another word for guessing here.
Wolverine said:
Of course, there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, as well as daughter product being present at the beginning.
Click to expand...
Also problems of course.

Science isn't measurements. It does not use inference or assumptions for measurement. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. There is no way to go back in time to see what actually happened.
 
Cypress said:
You cut and pasted from a website that publishes someone's opinion,

the author won't even share his name,

the article is not peer reviewed or published in a reputable scientific journal,

the author provides no citations to legitimate scientific literature so that his claims can be validated,

and the only citation provided is to somebody named Jon Covey. A rudimentary Google search reveals Jon Covey is the editor of some obscure creation science newsletter and has never been employed as a legitimate research scientist with expertise in isotope geochemistry.


Moral of the story: your link is not a credible source of reputable scientific information
Click to expand...

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc. There is no elite 'peer review'. Science is not a journal, magazine, website, pamphlet, or book. Science is not literature. Science isn't a research or study. Science is not a scientist or any group of scientists.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
 
Cypress said:
My guess is that they genuinely like most aspects of biochemistry, geology, physics, but they cannot be dislodged form their biblical literalism on sensitive topics like abiogenesis or the divine origins of humanity. But they are perfectly willing to write down the scientifically correct answers on a test.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Science is not a test or an answer to a test. Science is not incompatible with religion.

The Theory of Abiogenesis is not a theory of science. It is a religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top