[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 695 KB, 1600x1200, IMG_0023.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790501 No.2790501 [Reply] [Original]

How is the world only 6000 years old?

>> No.2790510

It isn't.

>> No.2790516

That pic is actually a very good argument, but not convincing enough.

>> No.2790537

>>2790501

>BUT IF PHYSICS WAS DIFFERENT HERP DERP

>> No.2790539

Why propose higher decay levels in the past? That would require a very strange shift in the physical laws which is way more of a stretch than to assume that the rates are static and have in fact been going on a lot longer than 6,000 years.

>> No.2790545
File: 763 KB, 1600x1200, IMG_0017.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790545

>>2790539

>> No.2790548

what am i reading

>> No.2790553

>>2790539
Because it supports their belief.

>>2790545
Do these geologists just make shit up, or are they just failed geologists who don't understand that they are wrong?

>> No.2790564
File: 29 KB, 91x90, 228152_296_avatar.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790564

>If radioactive decay rates were higher in the past

MFW

>> No.2790575
File: 657 KB, 1600x1200, IMG_0024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790575

>>2790553
Yet you fail to present a proper scientific argument against it.

>> No.2790582

>>2790548
Creationist science.

A.k.a bullfuck

>> No.2790584

>make up batshit insane theory
>make up evidence to support the theory
Yup sounds like the creation museum to me.
The same place the suggests people and dinosaurs lived together.

>> No.2790585

>>2790575

Because their statements aren't bases on any scientific facts.

>> No.2790587

>>2790575
It's not his duty to contradict the argument. It's the creator of the diagram's duty to defend his own argument.

>> No.2790594

why must decay rates be constant? ive never heard an argument for it. if spontaneous emition of photons by atoms are not really spontaneous but stimulated cant something similar cause radioactive decay?

>> No.2790596
File: 730 KB, 1600x1200, IMG_0045.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790596

Your belief that the world was made "billions" of years ago is a blind assumption. Open your eyes and see the science for yourself.

>> No.2790600

>>2790575

For a start, what you posted is a direct contradiction of what they said in >>2790545

>> No.2790611

>>2790596
That picture. Wow. Do people really believe this shit?

>> No.2790613

>>2790575
>>2790501
The first one is explainable as a composite rock. Some parts of the rock are older than others. Such things do exist.

Second, there is absolutely no explanation
as to how radioactivity rates could possibly have been faster in the past.

>> No.2790615

Because new carbon-14 is never produced right?

>> No.2790617

>>2790596
>Different results depending on their starting assumptions

Well sure, if you start assuming that a deity put them here 6,000 years ago then where else can you go from there?

>> No.2790619

>>2790596
Okay, now read what it says on the sign.
Creationist basically gave themselves a blank cheque to make up what ever the fuck they want there.

>> No.2790620

because we have a geneological record from Adam to Abraham to David to Jesus to the present, and some bishop hundreds of years ago cranked out the math and came up with the approx. 6000 year old date.

so if you take God at His word, the earth is about 6,000 years old. there is an interesting spiritual maxim that a day to the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. so the six days of creation could mirror the 6,000 years of recorded history, making the seventh day, the day of rest, the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth.

>> No.2790621

>>2790501
Rock Cycle?

>> No.2790634

>>2790613
Faster/Slower decay rates would mean that strong or weak nuclear forces were different right? Mountains of bullshit.

>> No.2790635

>>2790545

Rocks can fold like that.
Learn to Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fold_%28geology%29

>> No.2790636

>>2790596
>Starting assumption

YOUR DOING IT WRONG!

>> No.2790640
File: 811 KB, 1200x1600, IMG_0078.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790640

Go ahead. Make up things to discredit the word of God.

NOTE HOW IT DOESN'T WORK. NICE TRY.

>> No.2790646

Creationist evidence for the age of the universe: The bible

Scientist's evidence for the age of the universe: ????

>> No.2790648

>>2790539
think about this:

if the world is only 6,000 years old, then the first C14 was built up in the atmosphere only 6,000 years ago, and took some time to be ingested by plants and animals, etc. in other words, those plants and animals did not start out with what we consider the equilibrium point of C14; in fact, on day 6, they had zero.

so zoom forward; pretend the earth is billions of years old, and ask yourself this: with a half life of, what, 5730 years, how is it that anything over 100,000 years old can possibly have any measurable C14 in it?

and yet, all organic material that has ever been tested has C14 in it, including dinosaur bones.

kind of makes the earth look, you know, young.

>> No.2790649

>>2790640
None of those things contradict the things they think they contradict.

>> No.2790653

>>2790640
This guys a decent troll.
Isn't hard to get /sci/ though.

>> No.2790657

>>2790649
they are all consistent with a young earth created by God as detailed in the bible

so no, they don't contradict reality

>> No.2790664

>>2790653
oh, boy, i can hardly wait for your dissertation disproving everything on that board

i'll wait 9 minutes

>> No.2790668

>>2790640

No biologist ever said a rhino evolved from a bird, go fuck yourself

>> No.2790678

>>2790668
nothing has ever evolved from anything else, ever. kind begets kind. kind of defeats the whold macro-evolutionary theory when there is no record at all of one type of animal turning into another type of animal

>> No.2790690

>>2790635
you know what else folds like that? mud and silt left over from a global flood

you and your silly bendable rocks. lol

>> No.2790691
File: 247 KB, 875x402, oAnfA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790691

>>2790678

>> No.2790693

>>2790640

>Call everything 19th century.
>Think this discredits it.

>laughinggirls.jpg

>> No.2790694

>>2790648

>He thinks no new C14 is ever produced.

Jesus fucking christ, 10/10, would rage again.

>>2790646

Bitches don´t know ´bout my Microwave Background Radiation.

>> No.2790700

>>2790648

If it is exposed to modern-day air, of course it will have so level of C-14 in it.

Are you fucking retarded?

>> No.2790701

>>2790640
Damn that's funny.

Anyone else reckon there was a lawyer present while this was written?

>"The Bible CLAIMS"
>"The Bible >IMPLIES"

>> No.2790707

>>2790657

>ASSUME WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE IS CORRECT.
>USE THIS AS EVIDENCE OF PROOF.

>COOLSTORYBRO

>> No.2790710

>>2790691
micro-evolution is true; therefore macro-evolution MUST be true!!!


lololol

>> No.2790713

>>2790691
This is great, but it should illustrate the fact that everyone is a 'microevolutionary' offspring of their parents. I remember crocoduck guy was extremely shocked when he heard this, so perhaps other creationists do not realise that every child is an evolutionary 'step'

>> No.2790718

>>2790694
you tell me; how do dead things get C14 in them?

i'll wait
about 2 seconds lol

christfag out

>> No.2790721

>>2790690

>Implying folding rocks are evidence of a global flood and not a localised one.
>Implying that even if they were found all over the world this would be evidence of a global flood.

How would you measure their age to check they all happened at the same time? Radioactive dating? OH WAIT THAT DOESN'T WORK APPARENTLY.

>> No.2790724
File: 53 KB, 640x512, Crocoduck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790724

>>2790713

>> No.2790726
File: 725 KB, 1600x1200, IMG_0107.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790726

I like how after I disproved you in geology, you instantly switched to biology.

>> No.2790727

>>2790678

I don't even...

>> No.2790734

>>2790700
not as much as you, apparently, who thinks C14 seeps into dead things

lol

>> No.2790738

>>2790710

Yes, it is the product of a lot of microevolution.

>> No.2790739

>>2790721
i would check the river deltas in the entire world and find out they were...wait for it... no more than 4,500 years worth of silt

but you keep believing the bible is a "storybook"

lol

>> No.2790741

>>2790718
Dead implies the were alive at some point. That means they somehow ingested or integrated something with c-14 in it.

0/10 not evenmad

>> No.2790742

Scientifically proving things in the bible is self defeating :/

>> No.2790744

>>2790718

Exposure to air, you idiot.

>> No.2790746

>>2790710
If micro evolution is true, then macro evolution must be true by definition.

>> No.2790753

>>2790726

I think you're retarded.

>> No.2790754

>>2790744
>Implying you can ever truly die

By proving God I have proved an after life. Deal with it.

>> No.2790756

>>2790734

So you're implying rock can't have C14 in it at all because it has never been alive?

I don't think you understand physics at all.

>> No.2790762

>>2790739

How would you age it? Silt is not something that easily builds up and stays there, being on the floorbed and all.

>> No.2790763

>>2790710
If microevolution is true, Macro must be true. Any change will be accumulated, and you can expediate the process by the common sense idea of natural selection.

>> No.2790767

>>2790754

Contradicting yourself.

See >>2790734

>> No.2790772 [DELETED] 

Micro =/= Macro
It seems that you don't understand the difference between natural selection and evolution.

>> No.2790774

>>2790767
Contradictions can exist if they are influenced by a loving God.

>> No.2790779

>>2790726

> creation biologists
> HAHAHAohwow.jpg

>> No.2790782
File: 774 KB, 1200x1600, IMG_0188.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790782

Micro =/= Macro
It seems that you don't understand the difference between natural selection and evolution.

>> No.2790784

>>2790774

niggayoujustwentfullretard.jpg

>> No.2790790

>>2790782

It seems you don't understand how evolution works at all. If micro is true, then macro is if given time.

Macroevolution is the cumulative effect of microevolution happening through many successive generations.

>> No.2790791

>>2790774
Troll.

>> No.2790794

>>2790782
>Natural Selection and evolution are different concepts
Yeah, ok. They don't contradict each other, however.

>> No.2790798
File: 760 KB, 1200x1600, IMG_0189.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790798

>>2790794

>> No.2790799

>>2790791

NO SHIT NIGGER

>> No.2790800

>>2790726
Do these biologists just make shit up, or are they just failed biologists who don't understand that they are wrong?

>> No.2790806
File: 608 KB, 1200x1600, IMG_0190.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790806

>>2790794
Expanding upon that.

>> No.2790814

>>2790806
>based on man's opinion
>based on the Bible
Bahahahaha, this shit is hilarious

>> No.2790824

>>2790806
>Man says ___
>The bible says ___

I guess we know which one is true than. A living, thinking organism or some gay book written by some stone age dunderheads?

>> No.2790825

>>2790799
Go back to /b/.

Uncouth, uneducated moron.

>> No.2790833

>>2790806

The first of those three comparisons assumes things that just do not happen, such as animals never moving out of their environment, or their environment remaining constant. It also assumes natural selection removes bad traits completely, as opposed to diminishing them enough for it to stop being a hindrance. It often turns out that these things then develop again to be advantageous in some other way.

The second is wrong about natural selection being non-directional, for the reasons given above.

The third is not really relevant. Both can be consistent with creation or evolution, it's just that one presumes one seed, whereas the other presumes several.

>> No.2790828
File: 819 KB, 1600x1200, IMG_0195.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790828

>>2790806
I love how none of you have come up with any proper scientific arguments against the things that I have proposed and have instead merely resorted to ad hominem attacks and instantly writing me off as wrong.

>> No.2790837

>>2790825

PRESUMPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS EVERYWHERE

FUCK OFF YOU ARROGANT HIPSTER CUNT

>> No.2790840
File: 623 KB, 1600x1200, IMG_0073.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790840

>>2790824
Right.

>> No.2790847

>>2790828

... have you read anything in this thread? Not once have we used ad hominem attacks.

If I insult you, that is an insult. It is only an ad hominem attack if I have tried to use that to discredit your arguments.

ie. I think you're retarded, but I never implied you being retarded changes the validity of your arguments (none).

>> No.2790851

>>2790806

It's amazing how you havent noticed how the tree of life applies to the orchard principle.
Just try drawing a tree under those 6 organisms

>> No.2790852
File: 57 KB, 808x516, caps-lock.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790852

>>2790837

>> No.2790860

>>2790840

>Implying those writers wrote independent of each other, without knowledge of each other's teachings.

>Archaeology has contradicted many things in the Bible. For example, the temple that Jesus threw the traders out of appears to have never existed.

>The prophecies are incredibly vague. Often they're worse than tabloid horoscopes in this respect, and can be interpreted in many ways so as to be "true".

>> No.2790861

>>2790837
Umad?

Shit. Try and have a little bit of class. I know its the internet, but I can already tell that you are low-class trash.

>> No.2790866

>>2790828
I love how you have not bothered reading anything we've said.

>> No.2790868
File: 731 KB, 1200x1600, IMG_0079.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790868

>>2790847
Insulting the scientists that did the research is tantamount to ad hominem attacks against my arguments.

>> No.2790873
File: 20 KB, 600x446, Hores.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790873

>>2790861

>Implying I always type in the same way.
>Implying I am not finding baiting you hilarious.

>> No.2790882

>>2790873
>Implying that I'm not baiting you
>Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls?

>> No.2790883

>>2790868

Nope.jpg

You are flat-out wrong. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Common_misconceptions

>> No.2790888

>>2790868
>many historians believed writing had not been invented in the time of Moses
Uh, what? Which historians, exactly?

>> No.2790889

>>2790882

>Implying you are.

You know nothing about me. Don't presume to think you can judge me.

>> No.2790894

>>2790868

>SCIENTISTS WERE WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING, THEREFORE ALL SCIENCE IS WRONG.

I don't think you know what science is about, bro.

>> No.2790895

>>2790840

hundreds of bible prophecies had been engineered so they may apply in vague circumstances. Kinda like modern day astrology.

>> No.2790900

>>2790895
Hundreds of shut ups have been engineered so they your gay in dicks citcumstances. Kinda like modern your a retard.

>> No.2790901

>>2790868
Im not sure if I dissagree with this. People have made assumptions in the past which have been proven wrong, but its not exclusive to the bible.

>> No.2790902

>>2790900

I think we're winning.

>> No.2790903

>>2790889
>Yet you know nothing about me as well.

>> No.2790918

>>2790889
>Implying you know anything about me Anon.

>> No.2790922

>>2790903
>>2790918

Double post, my bad.

>> No.2790923

>>2790903
>>2790918

I didn't say I did. That is the difference.

>> No.2790927 [DELETED] 

Jalibait!!! CPP!!! CCPP!!! 10-17Yrs Old!!! Only Pretty Girls! New VIdeos!!! No pass No SMS! Free for ALL!

http://ino.me/c22859
http://ino.me/bdf9
http://ino.me/042ded
http://ino.me/e8e12a
http://ino.me/d50
http://ino.me/6a3da4
http://ino.me/c22859
http://ino.me/8b2dc9
http://ino.me/719623
http://ino.me/0caf21
http://ino.me/ce8f5b
http://ino.me/b97475
http://ino.me/1c003f
http://ino.me/4099c3
http://ino.me/590ccd
http://ino.me/7fe4e4
http://ino.me/a190cc
http://ino.me/9a4346
http://ino.me/30f201
http://ino.me/e59856
http://ino.me/b1cf00
http://ino.me/4e8f02
http://ino.me/676a16
http://ino.me/d80bc0
http://ino.me/d0da06
http://ino.me/a84c5a
http://ino.me/26babd
http://ino.me/1455bd
http://ino.me/a5af34
http://ino.me/3ee5d5
http://ino.me/4a834d
http://ino.me/bdf9
http://ino.me/d07ab
http://ino.me/6bdd40
http://ino.me/8da21d
http://ino.me/460aee
http://ino.me/de4c07
http://ino.me/212844
http://ino.me/49ea96
http://ino.me/f18313
http://ino.me/15ad03
http://ino.me/b8ead0
http://ino.me/cbf4fb
http://ino.me/b07efb

save all links before 404'S!.....!sdfgsdds

>> No.2790928
File: 477 KB, 1200x1600, IMG_0072.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790928

I must now bid you all adieu.
I have events planned that I must now engage in.
I will leave with but one thing I must tell you:
Do not accept things as true without first questioning them.
Not everything you learned in school was correct.

>> No.2790935

>>2790928

You are pathetically hypocritical.

>> No.2790936

>>2790922
God this guy's a n00bfag

>> No.2790937

/sci/ is by far the easiest bored on 4chan to troll. You guys are pathetic.

>> No.2790941

>>2790936
What's your problem douche bag?

>> No.2790947

>>2790941

You, you insecure fuck.

You're condescending, defensive and arrogant. Fucking hipster if I ever saw one.

>> No.2790950

>>2790941
You're a Fag

>> No.2790951

>>2790950
You're a bitch!

>> No.2790954

Creationists: The reason why we know that confirmation bias' do, in fact, exist.

Thanks for helping out Psychology though. They sure need it.

>> No.2790957

>>2790936
>>2790941
>>2790950
>>2790951

All of you can suck my dick

>> No.2790968
File: 19 KB, 240x249, troll_thread.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2790968

>> No.2790971

>>2790954
ah hell, you can't have a single decent thread on /sci/ without someone bringing psuedoscience into it.

>> No.2790977

>>2790947

You obviously haven't seen the we didn't start the flame war video. Faggot.

>> No.2790981

>>2790977

>GENERIC INSULTING REPLY

>GET CALLED ON IT

>LOLOL OBSCURE REFERENCE

Bullshit.

>> No.2790989

>>2790981
> implying college humor is and obscure reference

>> No.2790997

>>2790989

>Implying it isn't.

>> No.2791033

>>2790997
if I wanted my come back I'd have wiped it off your mothers chin.

>> No.2791044

x is y because x is y
I am God, therefore I am God.
This is the basic of [creationist] arguments.

>> No.2791046

>>2790981
Thats about like you calling Chocolate Rain an obscure reference, it depends on who you are I guess, but since these are common things on 4chan I assume another 4chan user to know the jargon. I wouldn't assume that if you were a non-4chan user.

>Assuming that the fact that you haven't seen it means that it is obscure when it has 15million views.

>> No.2791050

I'm not a *young* earth creationist, but it amuses me how /sci/ rails on psychology for having low standards, but always cite paleontologists and taxonomists whenever creationist trolls show up.

>> No.2791098

>>2790828
Because you haven't made any valid scientific statement

>> No.2791205

wow, thank you sir for informing me that the world is only 6,000 years old. I feel so stupid for thinking the world is 4.5 billion years old.

I owe you eternal gratitude sir!

>> No.2791250

It's because:

t/r=6000 yrs.

Where t is all time in existence and r is human retardation.

Not that you could ever quantify human stupidity, but hell, if religion can have a schizophrenic genocidal best selling author as their go to guy, I can put a figure to mass ineptitude.

>> No.2791258

If eugenics were acceptable, I would elect to kill off every person who interprets biblical history literally. Instead, they have more children than any other demographic.

I say we stop giving churches tax exempts, so these people can fall into poverty with their dedication to building huge churches, and die off.

>> No.2791268

>>2790868
I like how this says Moses wrote the law, but then points out Hammurabi wrote codified law first.

>> No.2791280

>troll thread on /sci/
>any retards I want
>120 replies starting

>> No.2791286
File: 26 KB, 565x546, 1294887547476.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2791286

>this thread

>> No.2791338

>>2790501
Let's have a look at OP's pic.
Oh, how surprising. It doesn't cite its source properly, just gives a guy's name. Oh well, let's try the Google.
> He's a creationist physicist. Not a geologist.
And so he just says shit about geology.
> And every geologist in the world tells him he doesn't know anything about geology and is making shit up, and even the shit he made up is done wrong and incomplete.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
> And that's how the world is 6000 years old.

>> No.2792239

>>2791338

Just have faith man..

>> No.2792639

>>2790928
>nightmare fuel.jpg

>> No.2792652

>>2790928

I'd pay money to have someone steal these and take pictures of them being fucked.

>> No.2792662

Strangely enough, I was just watching Paul and as I read the OP a Christian lady said "The earth is only 4000 years old"

small world

>> No.2792665

>>2792652
That's a given.

>> No.2792676

>>2792662
You're about 2,000 years off dumbass.

>> No.2793904
File: 452 KB, 1600x1200, IMG_0154.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2793904

>>2792652

>> No.2794167

>>2790828
Question for the creationists out there....

Can you discredit any science done with in the past 15 years? everything ive seen is what was belived in the 80s or earlier... pleaese?


oh wait you wont cuz it actually proves you guys wrong...

>thatswhereyourwrongyoufucktard.jpg