At what point do we start charging tuition?
At what point do we start charging tuition?
I guess we could argue that the people who get their "science" degrees from religious institutions don't actually count as "scientists," so in that case the figure would actually be 100%.Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
No, there are two variables. The rate of carbon-14 decomposition is fixed, so the only VARIABLES are the original quantity of carbon-14 and the remaining quantity of carbon-14.
Yes.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
Yeah...I guess you are totally blowing smoke...
There's no real discussion here.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
No kidding. Your viewpoint is doomed, it doesn't fit into reality. I give it two more generations.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
I think there are two kinds of people: (1) those who want to change other people's minds, and (2) those who want to be open enough to change their own minds. Of course one shouldn't change one's mind without a good reason to do so.
JuniperWoolf provided evidence that the earth is older than 8000 years using carbon-14's rate of decay and hillwalker provided evidence on how fossil stratification can lead to comparative geological dating. I think they did a good job of accepting BienvenuJDC's challenge to provide evidence rather than just expect him to accept their authority on what is right. However, the fact that he doesn't accept the evidence should not lead to frustration. It is an opportunity for those who accept the evidence to understand it better. There should ultimately be no need to change his mind.
I think it might have been mentioned before but arguing with Bien about science, is like arguing with the sky.
At the end of the day you always loose. Because a man shouting at the sky is never a winner.
Excuse me. This one is a funny one. It's already been dead for two at least. I think you have impossible hopes. Loved it, so to speak.
If it's been dead for two generations, how come I've encountered multiple people in my own generation who still think the way Bien does?
Good point! There are many more that you guys don't encounter. Eventually, people are going to start seeing the holes in the "theory". And just like I've experienced here, people are going to start seeing that the lack of evidence provided and the lack of substance. Again..."claims" of evidence (which is all that has been provided here, is not the same as evidence. Y'all are in a very small minority, just a very noisy minority.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
Bien, Juniper and Jack of Hearts dropped two atom bombs of enlightening posts direct upon your head. With this they blew away any veneer of credibility that may have hung to your beliefs. They provided straightforward, solid refutations of your objections to the theory. Your unwillingness to accept it is your fault, not theirs.
We are not the minority. Juniper is most likely correct in her assertion that 100 percent of credible scientists affirm the legitimacy of carbon dating and evolution. Were the research heads of all the institutions of higher learning and all the scientists who submit articles for peer review polled, I'd bet this figure of 100 percent would result.
Its one thing to affirm one's faith in the face of the facts. There's a certain honour and honesty to that. Its quite another to deny the facts, to distort reality and refashion it in accordance to one's liking.
Atheism is the fastest growing position on religion in America. I don't know how it is in other countries, but the polls here currently show religion on the decline and secularism on the rise. I think religion is a long way from being over, but it will be conquered. The spread of information can't be stopped so easily anymore.
I've provided facts, but (without any documentation) there was posted a claim of discredit. All you guys can do is provide vague claims of what scientists say. You have provided no evidence or documentation of evidence. Claims of evidence mean absolutely nothing. All I see is a blind faith in claims of scientific theory. Scientific theoretical claims are meaningless without actual evidence.
"Juniper is most likely correct in her assertion that 100 percent of credible scientists affirm the legitimacy of carbon dating and evolution."
Seriously? You don't even have faith in your statement. "most likely"??? She made an absolutely undocumented claim with NO SUPPORT. Please show how carbon dating is accurate beyond 5,000 years. CLAIMING that scientists believe that it is accurate isn't any kind of evidence.
If you actually read this site, you'll see that there is a legitimate question to the accuracy of Carbon 14.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
I'm sure that you're explanation is that these things aren't by legitimate scientists. That explanation isn't going to work, especially since no one has documented anything that they've claimed.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
What a thing to say on this the eve of our Lord and Saviour's birthday! At least we'll have good company for solace as we writhe in the flames of hell. Ah, an eternity of hell-fire as payment for our adherence to what in most striking and obvious certainty seems the undeniable truth. A just and loving God indeed.
You mock God, and you then question HIS justice and love. That's irony.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
Its an appeal to authority, but if the overwhelming majority of learned phd-accredited scientists affirm the legitimacy of carbon dating, well then that's good enough for me.
So you're saying that all these pre-human fossil remains which resemble us ever progressively more close, those which least match our anatomy buried deeper, those more alike to us nearer the surface, that all these are a mere coincidence if not an outright hoax? How do you explain this? It is reasonable to take them as evidence of evolution. Only by abject bias can they be interpreted as anything else.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
