• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can any creationist tell me ...

DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
"The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced"

I stopped right there. You honestly expect people to believe that scientists are absolutely unbiased people? Please.
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
SkepticThinker said:
They are cats.

I gave you two detailed links outlining their relatedness. I suggest you read them.
Click to expand...

You gave me two links explaining likenesses. You in no wise proved they are related or that one came from the other. Do you have any links where it is proved that one came from the other?
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
DavidFirth said:
Easy. Scientists at the ICR once sent a rock to be dated by a secular group of scientists. They dated the rock and sent it back. The scientists at the ICR sent the same rock back at a later date and the secular scientists sent the rock back with a very different date. Now, how does that happen?
Click to expand...
Do you have a citation so that I can look into this further. This is a rather vague assertion.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
DavidFirth said:
That happened a long time ago and I can't find the link. I can provide you with an article that shows that carbon dating is hardly considered accurate, though.
Click to expand...
That's because the rate of radioactive absorption is somewhat variable. So, to adjust for that they use tree rings and measure one after another after another...

BTW, to show you just how "honest" some of these creation "scientists" are, I have seen numerous time in their publications how someone dated a living mollusk and found it to be thousands of years old. Sounds like they got us, eh?

Except anyone who knows anything about C-14 dating also well knows that we cannot use it with aquatic organisms because the absorption rate is highly affected if the organism lives in the water. Yep, so for them, lying in the name of "God" is all fine and dandy-- probably so they can rake in the $ from those that are all too gullible so as to believe in their nonsense.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
DavidFirth said:
"The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced"

I stopped right there. You honestly expect people to believe that scientists are absolutely unbiased people? Please.
Click to expand...
Ah, but it doesn't say that scientists are unbiased people. You need to read it more carefully. It says the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is unprejudiced. It's designed to be self-correcting. And it works.
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
metis said:
That's because the rate of radioactive absorption is somewhat variable. So, to adjust for that they use tree rings and measure one after another after another...

BTW, to show you just how "honest" some of these creation "scientists" are, I have seen numerous time in their publications how someone dated a living mollusk and found it to be thousands of years old. Sounds like they got us, eh?

Except anyone who knows anything about C-14 dating also well knows that we cannot use it with aquatic organisms because the absorption rate is highly affected if the organism lives in the water. Yep, so for them, lying in the name of "God" is all fine and dandy-- probably so they can rake in the $ from those that are all too gullible so as to believe in their nonsense.
Click to expand...

Well, men are men and all men lie or have lied. I see you agree that carbon dating is not an exact science.
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
SkepticThinker said:
Ah, but it doesn't say that scientists are unbiased people. You need to read it more carefully. It says the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is unprejudiced. It's designed to be self-correcting. And it works.
Click to expand...

The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is decided, conducted and done by biased people. That's why the evidence can be interpreted in more than one way.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
DavidFirth said:
Not good enough for me. I want to hear the truth from someone I can trust who was there. Genesis is that truth.
Click to expand...

BS. The Bible was written by men attempting to sell their views to those they wanted to rule. It is propaganda, not truth.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
DavidFirth said:
You gave me two links explaining likenesses. You in no wise proved they are related or that one came from the other. Do you have any links where it is proved that one came from the other?
Click to expand...

You're joking, right? I gave you three articles discussing how scientists sequenced the genomes of tigers, snow lions and leopards indicating that the tiger shares 95.6% of its DNA with modern house cats.The articles go on to discuss the genetic alterations that occurred over tens of millions of years that resulted in the digestive, metabolic and musculatory differences between the big cats. And you're sitting here saying this doesn't prove they're related? What on earth would prove they are related then? Do you believe you're not actually related to your genetic relatives then? I'm confused.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
DavidFirth said:
I don't see any truth outside of the Bible. I see speculation based on assumptions. Not good enough for me. Knock yourself out, though, if it's good enough for you.
Click to expand...

And I see very little truth *in* the Bible. I see stories mixed with propaganda mixed with a bit of history. It is a book of myths, like most religious texts.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
DavidFirth said:
I am 100% certain because the Spirit of God has revealed the truth to me. So why should I listen to you when you admit you're not 100% certain about anything?
Click to expand...

Then you are self-deluded. Nothing revealed itself to you: you hallucinated and adopted your delusions as fact.
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
SkepticThinker said:
You're joking, right? I gave you three articles discussing how scientists sequenced the genomes of tigers, snow lions and leopards indicating that the tiger shares 95.6% of its DNA with modern house cats.The articles go on to discuss the genetic alterations that occurred over tens of millions of years that resulted in the digestive, metabolic and musculatory differences between the big cats. And you're sitting here saying this doesn't prove they're related? What on earth would prove they are related then? Do you believe you're not actually related to your genetic relatives then? I'm confused.
Click to expand...

"how scientists sequenced the genomes of tigers, snow lions and leopards indicating that the tiger shares 95.6% of its DNA with modern house cats" does not prove anything. So what? You've shown that their DNA is similar. That's a far cry from proving one came from the other.

Our DNA is what, 97% similar to a chimp's? Chimps aren't human at all. They're stupid animals just like the rest of the apes are. The remaining 3% is what's important. It is what distinguishes humans from chimps physically.

Your scientists make assumptions is all that you've proved. If a 57 Chevy is 97% similar to a 58 Chevy I guess that means the 58 evolved from the 57. Nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top