you both have problems that go beyond this topic.

I don't have a problem. I'm just pointing out that you're dumb.

Your problem is that you THINK that's what you're doing but the reality is you just look like a fool by advocating that no one should think critically or question any position you personally think is scientifically valid. That's not how real life works, and it's certainly not how science works.

Really you are only pointing out your own foolishness for not understanding that.

Continue on believing anyone who actually uses critical thinking skills is "dumb" while all sheep like yourself are not.

What critical thinking skills have you used? So far all you have done is copy/paste propaganda from a creation website. That's the exact opposite of critical thinking.

Critical thinking means examining the evidence on all sides of an issue for yourself, which I have done. I don't think you have because you seem so determined to insist no way but your own is correct.  Also, you won't even grant something as simple as it being possible for what science "knows" now to be wrong even though this happens regularly throughout history.

Please don't try to label anything as propaganda when you have demonstrated on multiple occasions you don't know what propaganda is.

All I did was find the necessary information. If it happened to be on a creationist website, that is of no significance to me.  The information itself is what is important, but since it serves your purpose to distract from the actual information by attacking the website that's what you'll do.

The ONLY thing I know for sure is that women do not pee out of their butt holes.

That is science - observable and repeatable

LOL did you observe this yourself? Wait don't answer that.

Posted by bistiza on 9/13/2013 1:50:00 PM (view original):
Critical thinking means examining the evidence on all sides of an issue for yourself, which I have done. I don't think you have because you seem so determined to insist no way but your own is correct.  Also, you won't even grant something as simple as it being possible for what science "knows" now to be wrong even though this happens regularly throughout history.

Please don't try to label anything as propaganda when you have demonstrated on multiple occasions you don't know what propaganda is.

All I did was find the necessary information. If it happened to be on a creationist website, that is of no significance to me.  The information itself is what is important, but since it serves your purpose to distract from the actual information by attacking the website that's what you'll do.

The information that you copied was incorrect. It takes all of five minutes and google to verify that the creation progaganda site is wrong.

Hold your horses there, BL. Stop trying to claim you've conquered the world when you can't fight your way out of a wet paper bag.

You contend that one portion of the information is incorrect, and your evidence for that is more than a little suspect.

Even if it were true, that STILL doesn't make the rest of the information incorrect, to wit the assumptions needed for radiocarbon dating are still necessary, meaning it is not always correct.

holy **** do you two ever STFU

it friday and I have a life unlike you two losers so I prolly wont waste time on this board on the weekend but I bet you two will rack up a hundred posts or so with your stupid **** so I will have something to read for fun when I come back.

Posted by bistiza on 9/13/2013 1:50:00 PM (view original):
Critical thinking means examining the evidence on all sides of an issue for yourself, which I have done. I don't think you have because you seem so determined to insist no way but your own is correct.  Also, you won't even grant something as simple as it being possible for what science "knows" now to be wrong even though this happens regularly throughout history.

Please don't try to label anything as propaganda when you have demonstrated on multiple occasions you don't know what propaganda is.

All I did was find the necessary information. If it happened to be on a creationist website, that is of no significance to me.  The information itself is what is important, but since it serves your purpose to distract from the actual information by attacking the website that's what you'll do.

But Bis, the problem with taking "facts" from an obviously biased website that that website has to be is that you need to think are they being perfectly fair with the data?  I honestly doubt it.  They are picking and choosing pieces of the whole to come up with the conclusions that they want to see.  Climate change deniers do the precise same thing.  The data that the deniers use is compelling and may even be completely true, same with these creationist scientists.  But if they were to use ALL the data available I am certain that both the deniers and the creationists would be eaten alive.  Notice I said certain, because I dont KNOW because I havent seen ALL the data.  Really nobody probably has.  So the best we can do in both instances is to go with what the vast vast majority of scientists believe and have proven with the data they have.  And in both cases old Earth and climate change is the very strong consensus.  Its not blindly following sheep to follow what the vast majority of scientists say is fact.  When and if new evidence shows up that disproves both I will re-examine my beliefs at that time.

greeny,

I was merely looking for the information I needed and did not care what website it came from once I found it.

I think BL is attacking the website because his attacks on the information itself have been unsuccessful, he knows it, and so he'll try to grasp onto anything he can. He's done that before when he's been losing badly in an argument with me. Get him backed into a corner and BL is like a wild animal - he just gets more stubborn and aggressive.

The information I provided is illustrating the point that radiocarbon dating methods are based upon assumptions which can lead to incorrect conclusions.

I think its unwise to "go with what the vast majority of scientists believe" unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Most people will believe anything "the vast majority of scientists believe" without so much as a second thought and that means they can't think critically and reach conclusions on their own.

Yes, following "the vast majority of scientists" without examining the information for yourself IS being a sheep. I'm not saying you can't determine anything for sure. With some things there is a near uniform consensus, such as "the earth is round". On most things, however, your "vast majority of scientists" have theories based on what they think they know, and that is a great recipe for being wrong, as they are later found to be on many occasions.

Seriously if you don't believe me take a good look at the field of quantum physics and how far it has come even since the days of Albert Einstein. He got a lot of things right that people before him got wrong, and new things are being learned on a regular basis. That happens in EVERY field in science.

If something doesn't fully make sense, I'd rather without making a judgment than guess and hope.

ut oh, he played the "albert Einstein" card. 

Yeah I've also played the Newton, Galileo, Curie and Tesla cards. I think that's a royal flush.

Posted by bistiza on 9/13/2013 4:10:00 PM (view original):
greeny,

I was merely looking for the information I needed and did not care what website it came from once I found it.

I think BL is attacking the website because his attacks on the information itself have been unsuccessful, he knows it, and so he'll try to grasp onto anything he can. He's done that before when he's been losing badly in an argument with me. Get him backed into a corner and BL is like a wild animal - he just gets more stubborn and aggressive.

The information I provided is illustrating the point that radiocarbon dating methods are based upon assumptions which can lead to incorrect conclusions.

I think its unwise to "go with what the vast majority of scientists believe" unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Most people will believe anything "the vast majority of scientists believe" without so much as a second thought and that means they can't think critically and reach conclusions on their own.

Yes, following "the vast majority of scientists" without examining the information for yourself IS being a sheep. I'm not saying you can't determine anything for sure. With some things there is a near uniform consensus, such as "the earth is round". On most things, however, your "vast majority of scientists" have theories based on what they think they know, and that is a great recipe for being wrong, as they are later found to be on many occasions.

Seriously if you don't believe me take a good look at the field of quantum physics and how far it has come even since the days of Albert Einstein. He got a lot of things right that people before him got wrong, and new things are being learned on a regular basis. That happens in EVERY field in science.

If something doesn't fully make sense, I'd rather without making a judgment than guess and hope.

bis, I wonder if there's any scientific evidence that you would accept regarding the age of the earth?

From a most basic level, it doesn't make sense that the earth is young. How could everything that has happened, have happened in just a few thousand years? We're talking evolution, dinosaurs, ice ages, continental drift...scientists think most of the stuff happened over hundreds of millions of years. Are they wrong?

What about Noah's Ark? Do you think that was real?