• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" Hates Creationism

That's the first thing I think of everytime I see threads like this.

She's cool as shit though.
 
TownieDeac said:
You were acting like time itself was an unreliable measuring stick, so I doubt you were overthinking things.

What do you mean by "assumption of the past"? It's still the working "assumption" of today.

I feel like this is why Bill Nye hates creationism. You can't even engage in discussion on the same terms if you're unwilling to accept certain scientifically tested pretenses. In this case, if you're undermining radiometric testing metrics, I don't know what to tell you about how we understand a lot of the physical universe.
Click to expand...

So we can't engage in discussion just because I was questioning how accurate the dating process was? Honestly, as a business major I don't know anything about any of this. I just find it odd that they can throw out numbers in year form and provide a percentage of how accurate it is when no one know how old the earth actually is.
 
Screamindemon3 said:
So we can't engage in discussion just because I was questioning how accurate the dating process was? Honestly, as a business major I don't know anything about any of this. I just find it odd that they can throw out numbers in year form and provide a percentage of how accurate it is when no one know how old the earth actually is.
Click to expand...

Why is it odd? If your parents didn't tell you when you were born you wouldn't know when you first started on planet Earth, yet you could still use the sun going up and coming down as reliable devices to figure out how many "days" you have been here if you wanted to start counting.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I've heard the "God put carbon dating here as a way to test us" defense before in an actual conversation.

Mrs. Marks(x?) at the Flava for Townie and Numbers.
Click to expand...

The Creation Museum tells us that the dinosaurs died out because the food they ate was destroyed by the flood.
 
So T-Rex died because other dinosaurs died in the flood? Way to be, Noah. You forgot to load up some herbivore dinosaurs, you jackass.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Why is it odd? If your parents didn't tell you when you were born you wouldn't know when you first started on planet Earth, yet you could still use the sun going up and coming down as reliable devices to figure out how many "days" you have been here if you wanted to start counting.
Click to expand...

I don't think the life cycle of a human and the life of the earth are comparable.
 
Screamindemon3 said:
I don't think the life cycle of a human and the life of the earth are comparable.
Click to expand...

They aren't. That was a pretty weak analogy on 27's part, IMO.

However, that way of thinking would explain why Yakubu insists that he isn't 49 years old. He might have just not started counting how many times the sun went up and down in the sky until he was already actually 20 years old. Thus, he thinks he is 29.
 
How big would the boat have needed to be to house every animal on Earth? I'm sure studies have been done.
 
Screamindemon3 said:
I don't think the life cycle of a human and the life of the earth are comparable.
Click to expand...

It was just a quick analogy (admittedly maybe not the best one).

The point is, just because you weren't around to know when something started doesn't mean that you can't use scientific methods to estimate how long it has been there. Take anything in nature, examine it carefully, study other cases like it (or in this case, things within it), and then run X amount of simulations and tests to come to a reasonable conclusion. That's what carbon dating has done in a nutshell.

I'm sure TW can do a better job of explaining it. I'm just trying to compare it to other things without getting all "sciencey".
 
deacvision7 said:
They aren't. That was a pretty weak analogy on 27's part, IMO.

However, that way of thinking would explain why Yakubu insists that he isn't 49 years old. He might have just not started counting how many times the sun went up and down in the sky until he was already actually 20 years old. Thus, he thinks he is 29.
Click to expand...

Feed the YAK and he will sco...errr, age!
 
Deacsfan27 said:
How big would the boat have needed to be to house every animal on Earth? I'm sure studies have been done.
Click to expand...

Well, doofus. Here is a true to life scale model. Spoiler because the pic is huge. If you look closely enough, you can see the dinosaurs going up the ramp!



dsc_0078.jpg
 
Screamindemon3 said:
I just find it odd that they can throw out numbers in year form and provide a percentage of how accurate it is when no one know how old the earth actually is.
Click to expand...

They know how accurate the method is so that know how accurate the dates are. Of course they know the margin of error. They can carbon date things they know the actual age of... over and over and over again and determine the margin of error by how close they are, which is pretty damn close.

Are you saying we can't date anything before our own lifetime?
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
Yeah the minority 32% compared to straight up creationism 46%. Seriously how are we going to advance as a country when 78% believe in creationism. Now the 32% that believe in evolution with God's help, at least they have a chance. Sure its easy to say we don't know everything, who knows what came before the very beginning then what became before that and so on. However at least those people believe the earth is older than 6,000 years old. Once again though, those are the minority compared to 46% who straight up believe that only 0.0000013% of the actual age of the earth has happened.
Click to expand...

It doesn't affect our progress in the least. It's not like these 46% are biologists. Everybody believed in creationism at some point, and yet we somehow managed to progress.

If we suck at science, it's because our schools suck at science and not because somebody chooses to believe that God created man.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
It doesn't affect our progress in the least. It's not like these 46% are biologists. Everybody believed in creationism at some point, and yet we somehow managed to progress.

If we suck at science, it's because our schools suck at science and not because somebody chooses to believe that God created man.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. It's been documented throughout history that at least a subset of people disagreed with it and preferred to look to science for explanations instead. It was just punishable by death up until the past 200 years to do so. That tends to snuff out much rational thought.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I don't think that's true. It's been documented throughout history that at least a subset of people disagreed with it and preferred to look to science for explanations instead. It was just punishable by death up until the past 200 years to do so. That tends to snuff out much rational thought.
Click to expand...

Fine, then the "official" belief of everybody was creationism at the risk of conducted heresy. Obviously, somebody had to break the mold. Regardless, the larger point still stands.
 
I still think that it hurts the overall bottom line in terms of expansion of knowledge through science because it is greatly limiting the amount of potentially intelligent people that could become biologists or scientists that could have a "breakthrough" discovery.
 
deacvision7 said:
Wouldn't need to hold the animals that could float or swim at least. Space saver.
Click to expand...

Would a freshwater flood disrupt saltwater creatures? Or would the saltwater mixing with the freshwater kill the freshwater fishes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top