Science - Nick Gisburne

Consider this
If you pray for rain long enough, it eventually does fall. If you pray for floodwaters to abate, they eventually do. The same happens in the absence of prayers.

Steve Allen

Science

Note: I need to do some housekeeping to remove videos which no longer exist on YouTube or elsewhere, so please bear with me and click on other links if a video does not play. Thanks.

Science doesn't have to be difficult. And the easiest thing about science is the way it takes apart all the religious nonsense and pseudo-science which seeks to discredit it. You just have to watch and learn. Science is knowledge, not faith in some super-natural force we can't even detect. That's why you will never disprove science with religion - for that, you need other facts, more science. As any scientist will tell you, being proved wrong is as equally rewarding as being proved right, because it simply adds to the sum total of our knowledge of how the universe works.

Why Young Earth Creationists are WRONG (2/2)

1 2

In the first part I showed how tree rings prove the earth is not 6,000 years old, but instead must be at least 11,300. Meaning the Young Earth Creationists are off by a factor of 2. Here I describe one radiometric dating technique, the Potassium-Argon Method. Data from this technique also proves the earth is not 6,000 years old (remember, in science you can always prove something wrong), but now points to the age at around 4,500,000,000 years. Meaning the Young Earth Creationists are off by almost a factor of a million. As Richard Dawkins put it (and I confirmed the calculation), this is like claiming the distance from New York to Los Angeles is 28 feet!

Each of the dating techniques has its strengths and weaknesses. For example, if rock is heated long after it originally cooled (transformed into metamorphic rock) it can lose some of its Argon. This is actually used by some geologists to date meteorite impact craters. Since the age given by the rock at the bottom of the crater will not be the age of the rock, but the age of the impact which reset the clock to zero. Another weakness is that certain Potassium minerals are water soluble and therefore can be leached out of the rock. Rocks containing these minerals are not used. The last two, Xenoliths and parentless Argon, are discussed in the video.

Suffice it to say, there is a ton of independent data from multiple techniques that all confirm each other. They all point to an earth that is a million times older than the young earth creationists believe. But why would they listen to data, evidence, and facts. I remind you of a quote from part 1.

. "...when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it's the interpretation of the data that is at fault."

A message to creationists:

If you believe the world was created by god, then why do you close your eyes to it? Put down the words of men, and yes the bible was written by men (god does not distribute through Amazon.com). And though these men claim to be divinely inspired we know humans have a history of not being trustworthy (even creationists). Look at the world around you, and study it, learn from it. If god created the rocks and they say they are 4.5 billion years old, and man wrote a book that says they are 6,000 years old, who should you believe. I think that's an easy one. God has routinely altered his position as humans have matured to accept it. "Eye for an eye" in the time of Moses while "turn the other cheek" in the time of Jesus. Maybe god simplified creation in Genesis because he knew people could not accept the truth, it was too far out there. But now science has advanced to reveal the truth, and humans have matured to accept that truth. Have you? So I say again, put down the words of men, and open your eyes to the world around you.

21 November 2006

Posted by:

cdk007

Science has Rules
Believe it or not, science has rules too!

Where did God come from? (Response)
A response to "Where did God come from?", a cosmological argument from VenomFangX, a young earth creationist.

Disproving Intelligent Design with a mouse trap
Dr. Kenneth Miller uses Dr. Behe's very own example of a mouse trap to prove why he thinks the central idea of intelligent design, irreducible complexity, is wrong.

Why do people laugh at creationists?

The only people so stupid as to not understand the answer are the creationists themselves. This is an excellent series of videos which takes bullshit 'scientific' claims from creationists and destroys them with real science.

AIG Creation Museum refuted by fossils below museum

The Answers In Genesis Creation Museum is built upon a world famous fossil layer. Creationist dishonesty exposed.

Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking gives a lecture on the Hawking-Hartle no-boundary universe. Lecture given to a sold-out crowd at the Berkeley on March 13 2007.

"Belief" in Science

What science is all about, and who believes in it... or not.

Evolution for ID-iots

Probably one of the best, if not the best visual explanations of how and why evolution is an intrinsic part of life. If you can't understand how evolution works after these two videos, you need more help than I can give you!

Evolution Primers

A series of videos dispelling some misconceptions about evolution and giving the basics about how evolution works.

Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists

In this animated Letter to Creationists is the strongest argument to date for the credibility of Evolution, showing Creationism for what it really is and always has been - myth.

Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists
8 evolutionary scientists analyze the current controversy between evolution and creationism, or all anti-evolution forces, including intelligent design.