Creationism [Kiljan Arslan vs Beren Erchamion] Commentary Thread

[Senno]

Did he agree to the debate? You posted already in the challenge thread.

Post your comments here.

Link to Debate Thread.

[Kiljan Arslan]

yes check my profile should my statement be longer?

[bushbush]

.....is there something to debate about that earth is older than 10,000 years...

[Father Jack]

.....is there something to debate about that earth is older than 10,000 years...

Well scientific fact Vs a book written in the bronze age......no debate there really.

[Confederate Jeb]

I fairly sure radioactive dating isn't to accurate past a certain point. Certainly not within millions of years.

Well scientific fact Vs a book written in the bronze age......no debate there really.

Scientific fact? Almost every scientist today goes into the lab having a biased worldview (which is what Darwinism is), and will accept even the smallest evidence that they find to prove their theories, even if their "scientific fact" proves nothing.

Anyway, go Beren!

[bushbush]

I fairly sure radioactive dating isn't to accurate past a certain point. Certainly not within millions of years.



Scientific fact? Almost every scientist today goes into the lab having a biased worldview (which is what Darwinism is), and will accept even the smallest evidence that they find to prove their theories, even if their "scientific fact" proves nothing.

Anyway, go Beren!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

i am pretty sure you jumped to the conclusion that it isn't accurate with probably 0 knowledge of how does it even work. judging from your age, you probably haven't even taken any senior year science course so i will forgive your ignorance.

but kid, next time, don't deny anything you dont know. That's called being a dumbass.

edit:

here you go son, Radiometric dating from a "christian perspective" LMAO, suits you for sure. Since if i bring up any legitimate scientific organization, you just gonna give me the crap that the entire scientific community is engaged in a conspiracy against Christianity.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html

The Age of the Earth
We now turn our attention to what the dating systems tell us about the age of the Earth. The most obvious constraint is the age of the oldest rocks. These have been dated at up to about four billion years. But actually only a very small portion of the Earth's rocks are that old. From satellite data and other measurements we know that the Earth's surface is constantly rearranging itself little by little as Earthquakes occur. Such rearranging cannot occur without some of the Earth's surface disappearing under other parts of the Earth's surface, re-melting some of the rock. So it appears that none of the rocks have survived from the creation of the Earth without undergoing remelting, metamorphism, or erosion, and all we can say--from this line of evidence--is that the Earth appears to be at least as old as the four billion year old rocks.
When scientists began systematically dating meteorites they learned a very interesting thing: nearly all of the meteorites had practically identical ages, at 4.56 billion years. These meteorites are chips off the asteroids. When the asteroids were formed in space, they cooled relatively quickly (some of them may never have gotten very warm), so all of their rocks were formed within a few million years. The asteroids' rocks have not been remelted ever since, so the ages have generally not been disturbed. Meteorites that show evidence of being from the largest asteroids have slightly younger ages. The moon is larger than the largest asteroid. Most of the rocks we have from the moon do not exceed 4.1 billion years. The samples thought to be the oldest are highly pulverized and difficult to date, though there are a few dates extending all the way to 4.4 to 4.5 billion years. Most scientists think that all the bodies in the solar system were created at about the same time. Evidence from the uranium, thorium, and lead isotopes links the Earth's age with that of the meteorites. This would make the Earth 4.5-4.6 billion years old.

[Father Jack]

bushbsuh summed this up quite well. School is your friend.

I fairly sure radioactive dating isn't to accurate past a certain point. Certainly not within millions of years.

Well its accurate enough to say 100% that the Earth is over 10000 years old. There are also other dating methods used.

Scientific fact? Almost every scientist today goes into the lab having a biased worldview (which is what Darwinism is), and will accept even the smallest evidence that they find to prove their theories, even if their "scientific fact" proves nothing.

Oh and what will a non biased world view on this matter be? Well small evidence is rather pushing it. There is considerable evidence for evolution and evidence that the world is older than 10000 years. To deny that is to spit in the face of all sceintific break throughs in the last 150 years as well as ignoring Paeleontological, geological and archaeological evidence. And what else is better than providing evidence? Hint: the answer isnt some sort of invisible deity.

But lets leave this for the main debate.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Confederate JEb darwinism is the thing that capitalists practice.

[Celsius]

What if he is religious?

[Kiljan Arslan]

I am a theist. I just believe that god can work through evolution.

[bushbush]

nice save lol, consider multiple methods of radiometric dating are used, not just carbon-dating, and all came up with similiar results.

[the Basque Knight]

Not sure if others are allowed to throw in their two cents in these debates, but isn't this debate pointless? One of you will quote endless amounts of scientific evidence to support your claim, and the other will quote equally endless amounts of religious texts that support your position.

Since science and religion have little relation to one another and both think their sources are correct and the others false, nobody will convice anyone of anything. Take it from a guy with a born again uncle, this debate is hopeless.

Moved for you - Rome kb8

[Каие]

Nope you can't throw in your two cents, I'm afraid. Rules can be found here, but no worries a commentary thread is provided free of charge for those kind of comments and relevant non-combatant discussion.

I'll move your post there. I moved my own post too!

[Heinz Guderian]

will people be talking about Dinosaurs? I wanna know how our forebearers took down a triceritops. Those guys pack two horns. I guess humans a few thousand years ago used some sort of diversionary tactic and perhaps a system of pulleys? Now I'm only guessing here, but what i really wanna know is why did Noah not take Unicorns with him?

[Каие]

Unicorns don't exist. But the rest was accurate.

[Heinz Guderian]

Unicorns don't exist. But the rest was accurate.

noah killed off unicorns

why would he do that?

[Каие]

Holy crap I was wrong.

[Markas]

noah killed off unicorns

why would he do that?

He beat them to death in a drunken rage whilst god had his back turned.

[Armatus]

Hey Kiljan the debate looks dead, did you do your homework first? I think most of the answers can be found in the "evolution vs creationism" or "Existence of God" pinned threads

[Garrigan]

Karl Pilkerington made a good point on Noah, why did he let so many similar animals on the Arc? I mean whats the point of having Mammoths AND Elephants, or Crows AND Blackbirds?

The man had no imagination if you ask me.