Bill Nye slams creationism

[RandomGuy]

[ad hominem]

Logically flawed, and mostly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[RandomGuy]

Fossils are great just show me where they are Billions of years old.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dating+fossils

Google works wonders. Get to reading.

[RandomGuy]

What are the flaws of the molecular clock model in determining relatedness between species?

It assumes that all changes in amino acid sequence are random and aren't affected by natural selection and this probably isn't true. Moreover, sequences of amino acids change at different rates in different organisms

The molecular clock alone can only say that one time period is twice as long as another: it cannot assign concrete dates. To achieve this, the molecular clock must first be calibrated against independent evidence about dates, such as the fossil record.[7] Alternatively, for viral phylogenetics and ancient DNA studies, two areas of evolutionary biology where it is impossible to sample sequences over an evolutionary timescale, the dates of the samples themselves can't be used to calibrate the molecular clock.

Pointing out flaws in a method, do not invalidate its usefulness, as known flaws can be compensated for, as well as taken into consideration when weighing evidence. Any method of measuring and gathering data is subject to flaws.

We learn a lot even so.

I would lastly point out that this particular method is not a way to gauge the age of fossils. You are, in essence, criticizing a puzzle piece for not creating a full picture.

If you understood what you were copying and pasting, you would realize that.

[RandomGuy]

The truth

Potassium-argon testing is flawed.

Again, already explained.

The funny thing is that these flaws are pointed out by scientists themselves, and these flaws are accounted for in other research.

In other words, these methods have known flaws that are accounted for, and acknowledged.

In the jelly bean experiment, there would be known flaws in your weighing method as well. Despite those flaws, your measurements are still useful data, when you know what you are doing.

[RandomGuy]

THE PROBLEMS WITH

CARBON-14 DATING

The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”

The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position. This method of dating, overall, tends to be as faulty and ill conceived as the evolutionary model that is was designed to support.

"biblical indications"

The bible is not evidence for anything, any more than Harry Potter books are evidence for secret wizard societies. It is funny that you think it is, but funny is not science.

Saying carbon-14 dating is unuseful, and proving it are two seperate things. I can show you direct statements from such people that they actively ignore evidence that they think contradicts the bible. That is not science.

Do you always trust what conservative christians tell you about the world mouse?

[mouse]

Do you always trust what conservative christians tell you about the world mouse?

I don't look at a persons religious background when I quote them that just shows how bias and one sided your mind works.

Instead of posting "real" evidence you post old pics of Fossils? and have yet to debunk any of my findings/

You let me down I would rather you just not reply and fade away back to the politics forum,

Let me find a few "sinners" aka "non religious" scientist to confirm Carbon dating is flawed how long you think it will take?

[mouse]

[mouse]

[mouse]

About your fossils.....

[RandomGuy]

I don't look at a persons religious background when I quote them that just shows how bias and one sided your mind works.

Instead of posting "real" evidence you post old pics of Fossils? and have yet to debunk any of my findings/

You let me down I would rather you just not reply and fade away back to the politics forum,

Let me find a few "sinners" aka "non religious" scientist to confirm Carbon dating is flawed how long you think it will take?

Non sequiturs aren't really arguments or "evidence" mouse.

Your posted copy and paste says that radio-isotope dating is wrong because it contradicts biblical indications.

The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young.

The question remains, and is rather central to the copy and pasted items.

Is the Bible valid evidence of anything? You imply it is when your criticisms of scientific methods of dating things is based on it.

[RandomGuy]

Not watching it. You won't watch anything I would post.

[RandomGuy]

Not watching it. You won't watch anything I would post.

[RandomGuy]

About your fossils.....

Not watching it. You won't watch anything I would post.

[mouse]

I have yet to present the hard evidence that not only can blow your Darwin boat out of the water, but you will feel the sting the night of the post!

That's Pride! ing with you,

[mouse]

Not watching it. You won't watch anything I would post.

for tat? ok post something worth watching.

[mouse]

Non sequiturs aren't really arguments or "evidence" mouse.

Your posted copy and paste says that radio-isotope dating is wrong because it contradicts biblical indications.



The question remains, and is rather central to the copy and pasted items.

Is the Bible valid evidence of anything? You imply it is when your criticisms of scientific methods of dating things is based on it.

So in a nuts you can't Debunk my ?

[mouse]

Not watching it. You won't watch anything I would post.

[RandomGuy]

So in a nuts you can't Debunk my ?

Already have. Multiple times. You keep reposting the same tired, flawed stuff over and over.

If you yourself wanted to see the flaws in the stuff you post, that is out there too. You just haven't bothered to read it, nor do I think you are capable of understanding it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_2.html


Etc, etc, etc.

Everyone of your claims on that list has been debunked. Not only has it been debunked, it has been debunked by scientific methods, such as the one you yourself would use to figure out the number of jelly beans in a jar.

Given so many bad claims, with very solid evidence to contradict them, the weight of evidence is pretty clear.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[RandomGuy]

for tat? ok post something worth watching.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[RandomGuy]

I have yet to present the hard evidence that not only can blow your Darwin boat out of the water, but you will feel the sting the night of the post!

That's Pride! ing with you,

I simply go where the evidence leads, and want to believe in as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible.

Meh. You will not produce anything new. Peace unto you, though. I hope the search for new stuff makes you happy.

I bet you can't find anything not on talkorigin's list. That should be telling you something, *if* you were interested in the truth, rather than lame trolling.

[mouse]

Already have. Multiple times. You keep reposting the same tired, flawed stuff over and over.

If you yourself wanted to see the flaws in the stuff you post, that is out there too. You just haven't bothered to read it, nor do I think you are capable of understanding it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_2.html


Etc, etc, etc.

Everyone of your claims on that list has been debunked. Not only has it been debunked, it has been debunked by scientific methods, such as the one you yourself would use to figure out the number of jelly beans in a jar.

Given so many bad claims, with very solid evidence to contradict them, the weight of evidence is pretty clear.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

There is a difference between debunking facts and a cheesy youtube video,. Besides why can't you just give us your "personal" views?
why hide behind a video or Google link?

[redzero]

There is a difference between debunking facts and a cheesy youtube video,. Besides why can't you just give us your "personal" views?
why hide behind a video or Google link?

Oh the irony.

[RandomGuy]

There is a difference between debunking facts and a cheesy youtube video,. Besides why can't you just give us your "personal" views?
why hide behind a video or Google link?

My personal views are that, based on the overwhelming evidence, the theory of evolution best explains life on our planet.

Other scientific evidence shows that the universe is immensely old, as something of a corollary to that.

I have spent long hours over the last 20+ years looking at that evidence, and looking at the claims of young earther types who generally want to prove their biblical accounts are more accurate than mountains of data and ac ulated human knowledge.

Personally, the scientists have proven consistently credible. They have earned my trust as authorities in their field.

The liars and charlatans that write the drivel you copy and paste... not so much. It saddens me that you assign them so much credibility, when they so obviously have motives for lying. I still hold out the hope you are just trolling, and don't buy their foolish flawed criticisms, but that is simply my dogged optimism.

[mouse]

Reason #11

Evolution fails.

[RandomGuy]

Reason #11

Evolution fails.

There is a difference between debunking facts and a cheesy youtube video

Watch this evidence for evolution and debunk it. Punk.