The Origin of Oil Points to Young Earth

[darin]

He has a theory. Its not proved in anyway. When he has real scientist that are not fundimentally motivated support his theory then he will have some credibility. And I say he has a unproven theory because its fundimentally based, not scientically based, and is not even a true scientific theory.

I find these guys to be offensive. They attempt to spin science to achieve their particular agenda of making the bible appear literally true when it is not. It's simply a blueprint for civilization.

This guy has as much credibility as al gore.

Dude - EVERY scientist goes about proving a hypothesis the same way - they presume. They start with a particular point of view, and seek to prove it. Macro-evolution violates a HUGE portion of the scientific method, yet it's somehow MORE plausible than what the guy in quesiton suggest? You're likely well-versed in science; So were popular scientists who shouted from the rooftops 'the world is FLAT!'. It took a man of FAITH to show it was, indeed, NOT-flat, right?



Open your mind and read the guy's claims...chew on 'em...study and see if he's right. IF he's right...it certainly changes things, right?

[darin]

Do you have any information to dispute the claims of the link or are you, in true creationist fashion, going to make believe they don't exist?

Do you have any information to dispute the claims of the article in the originating post? Do you have any specific information to refute the claims of 'expertise' listed for the piece's author?

[jillian]

Do you have any information to dispute the claims of the article in the originating post? Do you have any specific information to refute the claims of 'expertise' listed for the piece's author?

How's this? The bible isn't science and the fundie types should stop trying to muck up science by tryng to pretend that religion and science are interchangeable. Scientific method and peer-reviewed work are far different from the type of thing you're talking about.

[darin]

How's this? The bible isn't science and the fundie types should stop trying to muck up science by tryng to pretend that religion and science are interchangeable. Scientific method and peer-reviewed work are far different from the type of thing you're talking about.

You aren't even reading, are you? It seems like you MUST Have had that reply waiting in your bag for JUST the right time to use it. Please, do me a favor - don't clutter up my convo with Gaffer with your rants, Jillian. He and I are discussing things fine - Even me and Missleman - whom I respect. You simply wish to demean and insult. "You fundie types" - why not say what you mean? "You niggers."

[jillian]

You aren't even reading, are you? It seems like you MUST Have had that reply waiting in your bag for JUST the right time to use it. Please, do me a favor - don't clutter up my convo with Gaffer with your rants, Jillian. He and I are discussing things fine - Even me and Missleman - whom I respect. You simply wish to demean and insult. "You fundie types" - why not say what you mean? "You niggers."

Piss up a rope, love. Or buy a thicker skin. You believe what you believe. Most of us know it ain't science. And, btw, there are Christian folk like Jeff who I respect just fine.

And tough!

[5stringJeff]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

Dr. Snelling, interestingly enough, isn't on that list.

[Insein]

Better read.

The geological time scale is used by geologists and other scientists to describe the timing and relationships between events that have occurred during the history of the Earth. The table of geologic periods presented here is in accordance with the dates and nomenclature proposed by the International Commission on Stratigraphy, and uses the standard color codes of the United States Geological Survey.

Evidence from radiometric dating indicates that the Earth is about 4,570 million years old (expressed with m.y.a., i.e. million years ago, or "Ma" as in "it dates from 4570 Ma"). The geological or deep time of Earth's past has been organized into various units according to events which took place in each period. Different spans of time on the time scale are usually delimited by major geological or paleontological events, such as mass extinctions. For example, the boundary between the Cretaceous period and the Paleogene period is defined by the extinction event that marked the demise of the dinosaurs and of many marine species. Older periods which predate the reliable fossil record are defined by absolute age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

According to creationist scientists, radiometric dating holds no weight. They don't say exactly why. They simply say in too many words that some measurements are innaccurate therefore all measurements are inaccurate. Thus that makes creationism right, right?

[Mr. P]

Dude - .... So were popular scientists who shouted from the rooftops 'the world is FLAT!'. It took a man of FAITH to show it was, indeed, NOT-flat, right?

No, it took an Italian with big BALLS to PROVE he was right.

[darin]

Piss up a rope, love. Or buy a thicker skin. You believe what you believe. Most of us know it ain't science. And, btw, there are Christian folk like Jeff who I respect just fine.

And tough!

Translation: "I tried to insult you/make you look dumb in a convo between you and another person. Instead of being woman enough to admit it, I'll hurl MORE instult in your direction..."

[darin]

No, it took an Italian with big BALLS to PROVE he was right.

lol

[-Cp]

According to creationist scientists, radiometric dating holds no weight. They don't say exactly why. They simply say in too many words that some measurements are innaccurate therefore all measurements are inaccurate. Thus that makes creationism right, right?

Try not to assume... and go to the source..

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...faq/dating.asp

[Mr. P]

According to creationist scientists, radiometric dating holds no weight. They don't say exactly why. They simply say in too many words that some measurements are innaccurate therefore all measurements are inaccurate. Thus that makes creationism right, right?

Yep, it must be 100% for them. Funny that even they can’t agree 100% on the bible though.

[Insein]

No, it took an Italian with big BALLS to PROVE he was right.

Also not to be a downer on DMP, it was known by many scientists as early as 6th century BC that the world was round. Pythagorus hypothesized that the Earth was round but his theory didnt gain momentum till about the 3rd century BC. According to history though, everyone was relatively positive that the Earth was round by the 1st century AD based upon the way constellations would rotate in the sky depending on the time of the year.

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

Ironically, it was a Fiction book in the 19th century according to the wikipedia article that gave the popular notion that Many people thought the world was flat during Columbus' time. Much like what we're dealing with here.

[Insein]

Try not to assume... and go to the source..

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...faq/dating.asp

That was my source from the other thread when i read it there. He states that because 3 individual studies on the lava flows of a volcano in New Zealand yielded bad results, then ALL results are therefore faulty.

[-Cp]

That was my source from the other thread when i read it there. He states that because 3 individual studies on the lava flows of a volcano in New Zealand yielded bad results, then ALL results are therefore faulty.

You didn't even go to that link did you? I count at LEAST 30+ articles on there regarding how c14 - and other forms of radioactive dating - are dubious at best..