Never mind what Auntie Broomie thought you meant, Nerwin. You just watch the documentary while I phone 911 to get the EMT for your dear old aunt; she may have had a heart attack!
Looks like another person attended the infamous Dr. Hovind college course. Sadly universities and colleges do occasionally employ people from the fringe, and some universities are also set up with a specific religious agenda, even Hovind and Henry reasoning was based on insufficient knowledge of the ‘facts’.
That said there are probably still inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating, there’s just no way that you can get the real facts to even remotely fit the 10,000 year time frame that the creationists want it to.
The difference here is that one group tries to force the facts to fit their theory/belief. The other group tries to find the best theory to fit the known facts, and when new facts come along they adjust or create a new theory. this is the difference between daydreaming and science.
You’re right. Much better to take as absolute truth a book written in a language that 90% of it’s readers don’t read, by a culture whose values they don’t understand, as propaganda for a religious cult that happened to take off for political reasons 1600 years ago, which has. Yep, that’s real science that is.
@Nabuquduriuzhur, Uranium doesn’t decay to another isotope of uranium. It decays to other elements entirely. (E.g. Throrium). Here is a chart for U238: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain#Radium_series_.28also_known_as_uranium_series.29
Thus recrystallizing does purify the Uranium. (Although there are 2 isotopes of Uranium in the chain, so it is more complex than that, but U234 has a half life 10^8 shorter than U238, so it can be essentially ignored.)
@DreamSPay no attention to Dr. Hovind, he’s a fraud, he’s not earned a PhD from any where.
but that aside Nabu is correct, the retohric of harsh comments show who is truely biased. The “scientists” who fabricate long ages by selecgtively choosing answers that fit their pre-conceived ideas are guilty of poor science. There is plenty of solid evidence that the earth is less than 20,000 years old. If one could start with a clear mind [unbiased] and read the literature – he could agree that the earth does not HAVE to be 4.7 billions of years old. The evolutionists are forced to accept deep time.
Looking at some of the comments written today, it is amazing that those who believe the earth is billions of years old defend their position by insults and name-calling. The reason is that truth does not agree with their position. They have no other choice unless they change their view.
I also noticed somebody insulting the Bible. The Bible has been attacked for about 2,000 years for disagreeing with so called science at that period of history. It is amazing that eventually the so called science was proven wrong and the Bible determined to be scientifically correct. Using true science, nobody has ever found the Bible scientifically incorrect. I would be cautious attacking such an accurate, holy book as the Bible.
OK, you’re obviously a creationist troll, and I certainly don’t have time or the need to respond to most of your non-points. But here’s a couple of comments anyway:1) The Darwin quote is famously quote-mined (perhaps the most common form of creationists’ lying for jeebus); for the record, the quote continues: “Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.” This was Darwin’s style; to pose a seeming problem, and then to address it. For you not to have known that is simple ignorance; for you to use it from now on will be intentional lying—and you know where liars end up (Rev. 22:15).2) Kent Hovind is a fraud; his doctorate is fake, he’s in jail for tax evasion, and his “offer” is just another sham to take in the suckers. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/ for details.
Which is evidence against the silly claim that religionists and creationists sometimes make that science is a religion.On the other hand, the world would be a better place if science books were the holy texts. After all, unlike the koran and the bible, I’m not aware of any passages in Euclid, Harvey, Boyle, Hooke, Newton, Kepler, Halley, Lavoisier, Volta, Humboldt, Dalton, Lyell, Maxwell, Darwin, Planck, Einstein, Hubble, Wegener, Curie, Bohr, Watson & Crick, Hawking and others that codify the inferiority of women, allow slavery, and promote genocide. In fact, I can’t even find in any of their writings a place where they say that if another scientist disagrees with them, that the other is to be brought and killed before him à la Luke 19.27.
margueritem over 12 years ago
Good morning, LB. There seems to be a harangue going on here.
Llewellenbruce over 12 years ago
If you’d put a V-Chip in the TV Broomie you wouldn’thave to worry what Nerwin is watching.
MARG! Have a nice weekend and good luck with thatfoot when you see the Doc.
greatbest over 12 years ago
that is funny.
Sisyphos over 12 years ago
Never mind what Auntie Broomie thought you meant, Nerwin. You just watch the documentary while I phone 911 to get the EMT for your dear old aunt; she may have had a heart attack!
tirnaaisling over 12 years ago
Looks like another person attended the infamous Dr. Hovind college course. Sadly universities and colleges do occasionally employ people from the fringe, and some universities are also set up with a specific religious agenda, even Hovind and Henry reasoning was based on insufficient knowledge of the ‘facts’.
That said there are probably still inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating, there’s just no way that you can get the real facts to even remotely fit the 10,000 year time frame that the creationists want it to.
The difference here is that one group tries to force the facts to fit their theory/belief. The other group tries to find the best theory to fit the known facts, and when new facts come along they adjust or create a new theory. this is the difference between daydreaming and science.
stripseeker over 12 years ago
@ Jo Clear
Turn to the comments sections at your own risk!
stripseeker over 12 years ago
@Johnny Potseed
Please don’t remind us.
lindaf over 12 years ago
You’re right. Much better to take as absolute truth a book written in a language that 90% of it’s readers don’t read, by a culture whose values they don’t understand, as propaganda for a religious cult that happened to take off for political reasons 1600 years ago, which has. Yep, that’s real science that is.
stuart over 12 years ago
@Nabuquduriuzhur, Uranium doesn’t decay to another isotope of uranium. It decays to other elements entirely. (E.g. Throrium). Here is a chart for U238: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain#Radium_series_.28also_known_as_uranium_series.29
Thus recrystallizing does purify the Uranium. (Although there are 2 isotopes of Uranium in the chain, so it is more complex than that, but U234 has a half life 10^8 shorter than U238, so it can be essentially ignored.)
rnmontgomery over 12 years ago
@DreamSPay no attention to Dr. Hovind, he’s a fraud, he’s not earned a PhD from any where.
but that aside Nabu is correct, the retohric of harsh comments show who is truely biased. The “scientists” who fabricate long ages by selecgtively choosing answers that fit their pre-conceived ideas are guilty of poor science. There is plenty of solid evidence that the earth is less than 20,000 years old. If one could start with a clear mind [unbiased] and read the literature – he could agree that the earth does not HAVE to be 4.7 billions of years old. The evolutionists are forced to accept deep time.
parkerfields over 12 years ago
Looking at some of the comments written today, it is amazing that those who believe the earth is billions of years old defend their position by insults and name-calling. The reason is that truth does not agree with their position. They have no other choice unless they change their view.
I also noticed somebody insulting the Bible. The Bible has been attacked for about 2,000 years for disagreeing with so called science at that period of history. It is amazing that eventually the so called science was proven wrong and the Bible determined to be scientifically correct. Using true science, nobody has ever found the Bible scientifically incorrect. I would be cautious attacking such an accurate, holy book as the Bible.
markjoseph125 over 12 years ago
OK, you’re obviously a creationist troll, and I certainly don’t have time or the need to respond to most of your non-points. But here’s a couple of comments anyway:1) The Darwin quote is famously quote-mined (perhaps the most common form of creationists’ lying for jeebus); for the record, the quote continues: “Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.” This was Darwin’s style; to pose a seeming problem, and then to address it. For you not to have known that is simple ignorance; for you to use it from now on will be intentional lying—and you know where liars end up (Rev. 22:15).2) Kent Hovind is a fraud; his doctorate is fake, he’s in jail for tax evasion, and his “offer” is just another sham to take in the suckers. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/ for details.
travburg1 over 12 years ago
And a PhD is “piled higher and Deeper”
markjoseph125 over 12 years ago
Which is evidence against the silly claim that religionists and creationists sometimes make that science is a religion.On the other hand, the world would be a better place if science books were the holy texts. After all, unlike the koran and the bible, I’m not aware of any passages in Euclid, Harvey, Boyle, Hooke, Newton, Kepler, Halley, Lavoisier, Volta, Humboldt, Dalton, Lyell, Maxwell, Darwin, Planck, Einstein, Hubble, Wegener, Curie, Bohr, Watson & Crick, Hawking and others that codify the inferiority of women, allow slavery, and promote genocide. In fact, I can’t even find in any of their writings a place where they say that if another scientist disagrees with them, that the other is to be brought and killed before him à la Luke 19.27.