‘Intelligent design’ faces first big court test

Hehe - I know THAT feeling.

And I suppose my point is that you can mess up your kid as much as you like at home - just don't mess up his education. And don't come crying to me when he turns into a little Goth boi or Gothette.
 
Meh goths, I hate em... They only become goths so they can be 'unique', then they annoy their parents and they cry out ''That's it! I'm rebelling!'' their nothing compared to the true devil worshippers like me.

Anyway, I think creationism is heavily flawed, look at fossils, they date back millions of years, and if they don't, then it's as least 10,000 years, while the bible said the Earth is 6000 years old. And erm... that's my theory.
 
science and religion do not mix

one is a religous theory one is a Science theory

I can measure matter and engery

You can not measure , faith, or God

Two completely different prospectives

but I could not say there is a science of creationism. Not with out giving out all the creation stories
 
Quick note on carbon dating...

Most Christians I know claim that carbon dating is so erroneous it shouldn't be used. But isn't that the SAME test that is used to date religious texts?
 
Dark Virtue said:
Quick note on carbon dating...

Most Christians I know claim that carbon dating is so erroneous it shouldn't be used. But isn't that the SAME test that is used to date religious texts?
Click to expand...

Gotta agree with Gen...it's not good for dating anything.
 
^ I was about to ask that myself...
What's wrong with Carbon dating? I don't see why people except DV and I don't like it...I mean, it's not the ONLY way to date something, and it's not 100% accurate; nothing really can be perfect if it's used by 3rd dimensional beings.

We have pottery, other ancient carvings, tree-ring dating, other manuscripts...
 
I know...
hold it; what's the point of the previous debate on carbon dating again?? I thought DV was in support of it to some degree...

Just making sure I'm on the same page here...
 
oh. ok...then all i'm asking is why the others don't like it, because I'm in favor of it too.

Sorry about that DV; that was my bad.
 
Dark Virtue said:
And your preferred method of dating would be...?
Click to expand...

I don't have a preferred method.

But that does not change the fact that carbon dating does not work.

If something does not work you shouldn't use it just because there is nothing else that works either...
 
Didasko said:
I don't have a preferred method.

But that does not change the fact that carbon dating does not work.

If something does not work you shouldn't use it just because there is nothing else that works either...
Click to expand...

Ah, but it DOES work, it's just not foolproof.

That's like saying there was no point building the model T because Lamborghinis would be available 100 years later.
 
Carbon dating is just fine, provided it's used correctly and responsibly. The problem comes with people expecting to date things to a specific time of the afternoon...

Oh - and you have to be sure what you're testing. The example of living snails being found to be 25,000 years old - for example - when actually it had merely dated calciferous deposits in the shell that were lifted from what the snail had eaten.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
 
(I'm jumping in a little late)
Carbon dating is just fine, provided it's used correctly and responsibly. The problem comes with people expecting to date things to a specific time of the afternoon...

Oh - and you have to be sure what you're testing. The example of living snails being found to be 25,000 years old - for example - when actually it had merely dated calciferous deposits in the shell that were lifted from what the snail had eaten.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
Click to expand...
so, hypothetically, if someone was to prove that carbon dating was relatively accurate, how would one go about doing that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top