- Thread Author
- #1
By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!
Get Startedwell, the author is extremely ignorant about science too.
...
admitting one is not an expert in a field of science is a whole different kind of ignorance from believing the Earth is 6,000 years old in this day and age.
And I don't see how the fact that radiocarbon or isotropic dating (whatever you want to call it) might be off 1MM years is significant when comparing the numbers here.
even if it's off by 10MM years, it's obviously a lot older than 6,000 years, which is the point.
Jackass.
Way to totally not comprehend a single thing I said. Wow. I mean, you scored an absolute 0% on accuracy.
1. I did not even remotely state the idiot claiming Earth to be 6000 years old is correct.
2. The author was attempting to use Geology to prove something in Biology. Geology =/= Biology. Geology is about studying rocks, biology studies living things. They are two very different areas of study. Now, while you can use geology to support creature A lived during a certain span of time, you cannot say that just because creature B looks similar and comes from a later span of time that the process of Evolution is proven. Evolution is a Biological Process. To be proven, it must be demonstrated via Biological evidence that is able to independently verified by others. Yes, there is evidence from the studies of genetics/gene splicing/gene manipulation and other similar areas...but those are BIOLOGY based, not GEOLOGY based.
3. The quote that I bolded referenced the authors ASSUMPTION that isotropic dating cannot be in error by tens of millions of years. It actually depends on the isotrope/element being analyzed. It is actually possible to be off by far more than 10 million years when analyzing extremely long half-life istotropes/elements.
So, while the author is more intelligent than the person the article is about, he is NOT a scientific source for valid information, and his journalistic/research ability is greatly in question when he makes wild ass assumptions and uses science incorrectly. The fact that you take his info as absolute gospel is no better than the moron the story was written about taking as gospel that Earth is 6000 years old.
I get that I'm not the best at explaining things, so by all means, get Gulo involved in this, or turok, or anyone else who has scientific understanding to maybe explain it better than I can. You are immediately biased by anything I say, so by all means, get someone else and then maybe you will have a clearer understanding of the points I was making.
The "jackass" comment was completely disrespectful and uncalled for by the way. You need to consider that when you do not understand something, maybe there is miscommunication that needs to be clarified, but that does not make me a jackass. If anything, it just demonstrates what an absolute internet bully you try to be. It really is sad that someone with your intelligence continually attempts to use such kindergarten tactics to win arguments.
I get that I'm not the best at explaining things, so by all means, get Gulo involved in this
I don't think there's a scientific issue here. MC wants to talk about how dumb the guy that found the fossil is. You're disappointed in the sloppiness of the writing. MC thinks you're a jackass for not focusing on the guy that found the fossil. (I'm not interested in the guy that found the fossil either, so maybe I'm a jackass too. I'm disappointed there are so many young earthers out there, but they all know about fossils whether they found them or not.)
Also, I ignored this point in his first post, because I thought it was such bullshit it didn't need to be addressed, but since you think there's no scientific issue here, I guess I better address it now too.I don't think there's a scientific issue here. MC wants to talk about how dumb the guy that found the fossil is. You're disappointed in the sloppiness of the writing. MC thinks you're a jackass for not focusing on the guy that found the fossil. (I'm not interested in the guy that found the fossil either, so maybe I'm a jackass too. I'm disappointed there are so many young earthers out there, but they all know about fossils whether they found them or not.)
...
furthermore, the author is confusing evolution (a biological theory) with isotropic dating (geological theory). you cannot use isotropic dating to prove evolution. you can use it to say Creature X lived roughly from Time A to Time B, but you cannot use it to prove evolution. it supports the concept to some extent, helping show how creatures might have changed throughout time; however, the concept of evolution is still theory, ...
I also quibbled with his characterization of the writing as being that sloppy to begin with, but I think you've more or less hit the nail on the head.
Also, I ignored this point in his first post, because I thought it was such bullshit it didn't need to be addressed, but since you think there's no scientific issue here, I guess I better address it now too.
OK. I can budge on this second part; there is some science here. You can't prove evolution through isotope dating on it's own, but it's a strong piece of evidence as to why people believe it.
yes.
also, evolution is a theory as well as a fact. He was wrong about that too. That's science as well.
Just typing that feels good:
Evolution is a fact.
Deal with it, creationists and zyxt.
According to every scientific document written to date, The Theory of Evolution is still listed as a Theory. Prove me wrong with evidence from a legit scientific organization.
Furthermore, I never said I disagree with many aspects of the theory, I only have issue with a small percentage of the concept. I do not believe all life began from a singular chemical reaction that was given life from a bolt of lightning. I believe there were a large variety of life forms created throughout the earlier times on Earth and that such events still take place today (zero reason to believe it only could have happened back then, the processes shoukd be happening even now). This is why I believe different species exist. Evolution attempts to say species morph into multiple species. I believe species were initially created from different elements and molecules, that the source of energy was different, and these differences are hiw different species came to exist.
The traditional Theory of Evolution, IMHO, is only partially right but science is going to bear out what I have stated here in time.
But I don't want to bore you with my scientific opinion. Just keep labeing me a Bibke Thumper....its easier for you.
I didn't get the Bolt of lightning thing either
That sounds like something God would do.
Founded in 2011, Detroit Sports Forum is a community of fanatics dedicated to teams like the Lions, Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Wolverines, and more. We live and breathe Detroit sports!