bless the child
New member
Ignorance is bliss...
Last edited:
perspective@100
New member
Humans are just like Viruses... We don't evolve, we mutate.
Last edited:
The Jackal
New member
They plan to be science major and refuse to believe in scientific dfata?
Last edited:
perspective@100
New member
The Irony sounds about right... Hey the Earth was thought to be flat... It had edges you could fall off of... People who had disorders were burned... perspectives change and they just look rediculous down the line...
Last edited:
alissowack
New member
There are religious overtones involve but I think you don't need to see it from that point of view. There are people who are against evolution and they have no religious (or to be specific, Christian) influences for reasons I am not qualified to answer. I've heard David Berlinski's take on evolution and though convincing the argument is in opposing evolution, it doesn't make me go, "Chalk one up for the good guys". If there are flaws in this theory, then why hasn't science been able to objectively come to that conclusion?
Last edited:
getchamoneyrigh
New member
The Douce;53106 said:
You must be in an introductory class. They will open their minds by next year.
Last edited:
Swiffness!
New member
Man, I'm not even gonna touch this. If niggas wanna pretend the Earth is 6,000 old and that the fields of Geology, Biology, Anthropology, etc, are all a hoax or a conspiracy, they can go vote for Sarah Palin and wallow in their ignorance. While fully enjoying the luxuries that science and technology provide, of course.
Last edited:
Don't be to enthusiastic about science....it is a great tool, but has been corrupted.....of course because it was made by man. My opinion is that science is to compartmentilized and I find that quite odd for some reason. Evolutioninary theory has many holes in it, just like any other theory about life. Radioactive dating is also very flawed....i'm not saying the earth is 6,000 years old, but I am saying it might actually be a lot older or a lot younger.
Last edited:
Swiffness!
New member
whar67;56407 said:
its not in the bible
Last edited:
DoUwant2go2Heaven
New member
The Douce;53106 said:
Laughable, even Funnier than LT's new video.
Last edited:
One of the flaws of radiometric dating are based on 3 ASSUMPTIONS 1. Decay rate being constant (which is probably true).
2.Start with no or known daughter component(unlikely)
3.Isolated systems-no external loss/addition of parent or daughter components, which is very unlikely after a couple million years.
Also there is many incosistencies involved in Radiometric dating which are documented.....such as... recent rocks formed from the lava, but after radiometric testing, dated back a few million years. Different test and different dates....you can't expect everything to be "perfect" in Science it is a flawed system just like everything else man made. Let's not forget selective publication of radiometric testing on lava rocks that are consistent with what they believe.....but when testing other rocks nearby reveal very different numbers and the ones that reveal different numbers are thrown out as "bad" and not published often.
2.Start with no or known daughter component(unlikely)
3.Isolated systems-no external loss/addition of parent or daughter components, which is very unlikely after a couple million years.
Also there is many incosistencies involved in Radiometric dating which are documented.....such as... recent rocks formed from the lava, but after radiometric testing, dated back a few million years. Different test and different dates....you can't expect everything to be "perfect" in Science it is a flawed system just like everything else man made. Let's not forget selective publication of radiometric testing on lava rocks that are consistent with what they believe.....but when testing other rocks nearby reveal very different numbers and the ones that reveal different numbers are thrown out as "bad" and not published often.
Last edited:
getchamoneyrigh
New member
Jay Pee;54748 said:
6 thousand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Holy moly!!! It is way older than that. Its been proven to be at least 4.5 million years old! Wow I feel like Im in the 1800's. Its 2010 I think! Right?
Last edited:
Jay Pee;58325 said:
"With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples. Plotting P/D2 on the x axis and D/D2 on the y axis for several different samples gives a line that is initially horizontal. Over time, as P decays to D, the line remains straight, but its slope increases. The age of the sample can be calculated from the slope, and the initial concentration of the daughter element D is given by where the line meets the y axis. If D/D2 is not initially the same in all samples, the data points tend to scatter on the isochron diagram, rather than falling on a straight line."
"For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable. For example:
K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals. This assumption can be tested by looking for argon in low-potassium minerals (such as quartz), which would not contain substantial argon daughter products. 40Ar/39Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can also identify the presence of initial excess argon.
The concordia method is used on minerals, mostly zircon, that reject lead as they crystalize.
Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of carbon-14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived. This varies somewhat, but calibration with other techniques (such as dendrochronology) allows the variations to be corrected.
Fission-track dating assumes that newly solidified minerals will not have fission tracks in them."
"Absolutely closed systems do not exist even under ideal laboratory conditions. Nevertheless, many rocks approximate closed systems so closely that multiple radiometric dating methods produce consistent results, within 1 percent of each other.
Some rocks may be open to outside contamination, but not all of them are. Most ages are determined from multiple mineral and rock samples, which give a consistent date within 1 and 3 percent. It is extremely unlikely that contamination would affect all samples by the same amount.
Isochron methods can detect contamination and, to some extent, correct for it. Isochrons are determined from multiple samples, and contamination would have to affect all of the samples the same way in order to create an isochron that appeared okay but was wrong (see CD002).
With uranium-lead dating, closure of the system may be tested with a concordia diagram. This takes advantage of the fact that there are two isotopes of uranium (238U and 235U) that decay to different isotopes of lead (206Pb and 207Pb, respectively). If the system has remained closed, then a plot of 206Pb / 238U versus 207Pb / 235U will fall on a known line called the concordia. Even if samples are discordant, reliable dates can often be derived (Faure 1998, 287-290).
Geochronologists are well aware of the dangers of contamination, and they take pains to minimize it. For example, they do not use weathered samples."
Talk Origins
Last edited:
