It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

page: 17
59
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

LOL! So you cite a random PDF from non-scientific creationist website? Right, OK mate.


The PDF is a compilation of all the citations of the many examples of the C-14 dating of dinosaurs. it is an objective compilation that is genuinely seeking the truth, and you dismiss it because it contradicts your dogma.

Don't you see how zealous you all have become from me merely posting contradictory evidence to your beloved dogmatic theories?



The very first citation in that list is from a non peer-reviewed creationist website. The scientific illiteracy being displayed here is astounding.

I also note you have not addressed any of my questions regarding the dating methods used to determine the age of the aforementioned dinosaur fossil.

I'm not going to sit here all day going round in circles with you holding up creationist nonsense to as evidence because you lack even the most basic understanding of the science being discussed. I rest my case.
edit on 1-6-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Indigo5
If you have some science that you think is being denied by scientists...please provide it.


1) soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains.
2) carbon-dating dinosaur remains

It'd be a marvel if any of the mainstream scientismists actually earnestly looked into this and formed a non-bias opinion based on the empirical findings.


But how could they be, we ALL know that dinosaurs are millions of years old, the results would have to be flawed, the soft tissue contamination.. the results outliers...that MUST....Be....Discarded...at ALL COSTS...

The funniest part is that most of the people who REALLY believe the above don't realize how ridiculously STUPID it is to believe it.

Jaden



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Seeing as another creationist has entered the fray, perhaps you'd like to back up your assertions with facts by answering these questions:

What were the dating methods they used and why were they wrong?



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

The claims made by science are factual, reproducible, and measurable. If they aren't, we aren't talking about science.


Science makes claims? I thought that people make claims.

There was another poster who said something along the lines of "science allows me to build my destiny."

Science allows, science makes claims..... very interesting choices of words. It's been noted.
edit on 1-6-2016 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

REALLY??? Please, all knowing one, explain the science to us... You like to pontificate on how scientifically ignorant we are, please, please, show us our ignorance...explain it to us.

Even were I truly scientifically ignorant, one thing you have proven yourself to be is logically ignorant... I will take being science establishment ignorant over logically rationally ignorant ANY DAY OF THE WEEK....

Jaden



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

The very first citation in that list is from a non peer-reviewed creationist website. The scientific illiteracy being displayed here is astounding.

I also note you have not addressed any of my questions regarding the dating methods used to determine the age of the aforementioned dinosaur fossil.

I'm not going to sit here all day going round in circles with you holding up creationist nonsense to as evidence because you lack even the most basic understanding of the science being discussed. I rest my case.


And here it is; any contradictory evidence is considered "creationist nonsense" - despite the many peer-reviewed articles in the PDF compilation regarding thousand year old C-14 dates on dinosaur remains. Just like your assertions that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is scientifically illiterate. This is like the Spanish inquisition except in regards to fallacious science.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

My questions are very straight forward:

What were the dating methods they used and why were they wrong?



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Do you have reading comprehension issues? I specifically stated that I WASN'T a creationist...but then again, straw men and ad hominem attacks are really all that you have, so I don't know why I would expect anything different from you.

The methods they used weren't wrong, the extrapolation they used was fundamentally flawed... You can't measure erosion patterns for 6 months or even 60 years and claim to know what happened for the last billion years. That's where it started. That was the foundation. As they discovered more methods, the STILL used that as a foundation. Then as they were proven wrong time and time again, they tweaked and made up and discarded etc...until they arrived where they wanted.

Jaden

p.s. if you had been paying attention, I have already given an explanation as to how both billions of years in TIME and the earth only traveling around the sun several thousand times could potentially be correct. It doesn't change the fundamental flaw though.
edit on 1-6-2016 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2016 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: GetHyped

Do you have reading comprehension issues? I specifically stated that I WASN'T a creationist...

The methods they used weren't wrong, the extrapolation they used was fundamentally flawed... You can't measure erosion patterns for 6 months or even 60 years and claim to know what happened for the last billion years. That's where it started. That was the foundation. As they discovered more methods, the STILL used that as a foundation. Then as they were proven wrong time and time again, they tweaked and made up and discarded etc...until they arrived where they wanted.

Jaden


Rather than offering up more conjecture, why not specifically state the methods they used and why they were flawed?

Here's the paper: HERE
edit on 1-6-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: syrinx high priest

Wake me up next time even 80% of the peer reviewed articles are truly objectively reviewed without any Religion of Scientism biases influencing their review.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

Wake me up when you offer up more than unsubstantiated conjecture.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc

Science allows, science makes claims..... very interesting choices of words. It's been noted.


and so the Science God became sentient.

Praise Science!



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: BO XIAN

Wake me up when you offer up more than unsubstantiated conjecture.


wake me up when you consider and analyze contradictory evidence without bias.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: GetHyped

Do you have reading comprehension issues? I specifically stated that I WASN'T a creationist...

The methods they used weren't wrong, the extrapolation they used was fundamentally flawed... You can't measure erosion patterns for 6 months or even 60 years and claim to know what happened for the last billion years. That's where it started. That was the foundation. As they discovered more methods, the STILL used that as a foundation. Then as they were proven wrong time and time again, they tweaked and made up and discarded etc...until they arrived where they wanted.

Jaden


Rather than offering up more conjecture, why not specifically state the methods they used and why they were flawed?

Here's the paper: HERE


umm yeah you have to be a member to see the full text...I'm not paying for the site to read the article as I have no need.

Where did I ARGUE that they were specifically wrong about that anyways? More straw men.

Please point out any flaw in my reasoning. Point out that I'm incorrect about how the evolution of scientific theory and dogma occurred (the only place we really know evolution to be historical fact).

But please, argue to the right person about #, I didn't make that argument, someone else did.

Jaden



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I've been toe to toe with you in the Creationist forum and all you offer up is pseudoscientific creationist nonsense as "sources". If you think I'm going to sit through another round of that again you must be barking mad.

Come back with some credible info, otherwise I'm just going to ignore your posts. You've illustrated my point well enough as it is.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: GetHyped

Do you have reading comprehension issues? I specifically stated that I WASN'T a creationist...

The methods they used weren't wrong, the extrapolation they used was fundamentally flawed... You can't measure erosion patterns for 6 months or even 60 years and claim to know what happened for the last billion years. That's where it started. That was the foundation. As they discovered more methods, the STILL used that as a foundation. Then as they were proven wrong time and time again, they tweaked and made up and discarded etc...until they arrived where they wanted.

Jaden


Rather than offering up more conjecture, why not specifically state the methods they used and why they were flawed?

Here's the paper: HERE


umm yeah you have to be a member to see the full text...I'm not paying for the site to read the article as I have no need.


So you haven't read it, yet you still offer up unsubstantiated conjecture? Without even being familiar with the science in question?

Ok, you've made my point well enough.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

LOLOLOLOLOL

Fantasy follies on parade again.

LOLOL.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

In your scientific opinion, are you claiming that expecting a criticism of a scientific discovery to be backed up with scientific evidence a "fantasy folly"?

Do think that criticism a paper that they haven't even read is good academic due-diligence and intellectual honesty?

Ok. My point has been made again.
edit on 1-6-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN

It requires belief (faith) in its unprovable theories (doctrine).


Where did you get the idea science requires faith? Science is based in evidence and empirical studies, that DO, in fact, prove the theories. If a theory is proven false, it is thrown out.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Your fantasies about what I said, meant, was talking about etc.

I don't think there's any hope for better perceptiveness on such scores.




top topics



 
59
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join