Safe Mode: On
Top Ten Creationist Arguments Demolished And Then Some

Science.....

Loading the player ...
Embed Code
Plays: 2465 (Embed: 0)

Added: Jul-2-2011 
By: gregsto
In: Other
Tags: creationist, creationism, atheist, religion, god, magic, a wizard made my mommy and my turtle
Location: United States (load item map)
Marked as: approved
Views: 3978 | Comments: 24 | Votes: 5 | Favorites: 3 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Comment of user 'ScottishDude' has been deleted by author!

  • Great vid. Every fact stated in the vid comes with a source displayed.

    Posted Jul-2-2011 By 
    Irahayes (4.20)  

    (1)

  • Comment of user 'emetvideos' has been deleted by author!

  • Keep in mind that whether the evolutionary mechanisms exist or not does not necessitate the evolutionary account for origins of life. Fact is that we cannot go back and witness the emergence of life.

    Saying the evolutionary account for the origins of life is correct is to claim all other possibilities are wrong. How might you go about proving that aliens did not seed the planet? Why MUST all life have come from common ancestry? We simply do not know if that is the case.

    If naturalism is true h More..

    Posted Jul-2-2011 By 
    camy011 (147.60)  

    (1)

    • @camy011 Correct. However there is far more evidence that aliens seeded the planet than a magic sky wizard blinked us into existence...

      Posted Jul-3-2011 By 
      gregsto (2476.38)  

      (-1)

  • Comment of user 'MrWhatever' has been deleted by author!
  • Comment of user 'soleil vert' has been deleted by author!

  • What did they use as a control specimen to determine the accuracy of these type of dating?

    Posted Jul-2-2011 By 
    vmflager (30.00)  

    (0)

  • Comment of user 'Riot_On' has been deleted by author!

  • Non belivers try so hard to change the minds of belivers that its comical. Just like homers in a gay pride parade. When u are right then there is no need to prove yourself. I'm not saying who is right or wrong. Wont know for sure till I die. But I would rather be a wrong believer than nonbeliver. Just keep reassuring ur selfs. But u can't sway a true beliver

    Posted Jul-2-2011 By 
    vmflager (30.00)  

    (-1)

  • Wow #1 was a major fail. That's what the atheist call "demolished"? These dudes are shallow.

    The methods listed do "confidently" measure decay, yet each has 7 basic assumptions that must be made. Do LiveLeakers know what they are? Why were they not discussed in this video? When evolutionist point to our earth as being an "open system" as the reason it's OK to violate the second law of thermodynamics, why then is the assumption that the earth is a "closed syste More..

    Posted Jul-2-2011 By 
    Yukon6400 (1007.22)

    (-2)

    • @Yukon6400 Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is likely that not enough Argon 40 will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable. K–Ar dating was instrumental in the development of the geomagnetic polarity time scale.[2] Although it finds the most utility in geological applications, it plays an important role in archaeology. One archeological application has been More..

      Posted Jul-2-2011 By 
      ibelieveindog (1099.54)  

      (1)

    • @Yukon6400 You are WRONG. Each radiometric dating method does NOT require 7 assumptions. They are not discussed in the video i imagine because the video was 8 minutes and not meant to be a course in nuclear physics.

      As for your misinformed, and frequently cited absolute nonsense from the creationists, potassium argon dating is quite reliable...it is your characterization of the findings in the 1800 lava that is desperately flawed:

      http://www.answersincreation.org/blind.htm

      http://members.cox. More..

      Posted Jul-2-2011 By 
      gregsto (2476.38)  

      (-1)

    • @ibelieveindog

      That's impressive. A cut and paste from wikipedia. At least you didn't have to discuss the 7 assumptions and 5 variables that significantly influence dating.

      But since you brought up K-Ar dating, let's run with it.

      Potassium-Argon dating is where radioactive potassium decays into calcium and argon gas. Potassium occurs widely in fossil-bearing strata. The problem was, there is such wide dating variations, it's hard to agree on a potassium half-life. The rare gas, argon, quickl More..

      Posted Jul-2-2011 By 
      Yukon6400 (1007.22)

      (-2)

    • @gregsto "Each radiometric dating method does NOT require 7 assumptions."

      OK, just curious. What assumptions that YOU are aware of that are necessary, if any, in radiometric dating? No links, just list them here. Take your time.

      Posted Jul-2-2011 By 
      Yukon6400 (1007.22)

      (0)

    • @Yukon6400 You are right. Thousands of scientists that have forgotten more than you will ever know use these dating methods. Not only do they use them, but they use various methods to confirm their findings and come up with the same results (within a small margin). But YOU, you know more than the majority of the scientific community. There's definitely more evidence for the earth being 6,000 years old. On which day did God create those dinosaur fossils in the earth to test our faith?

      Posted Jul-2-2011 By 
      ibelieveindog (1099.54)  

      (-1)