ive only seen LS like twice since I came back last year. Nai probably counts.
Just interesting how few members we actually still have, and yet the forum survives, rehashing the same old arguments over and over. I remember joining like a couple of months after ROTS came out, and thought this forum was the best idea ever.
I used to do the other two SW forums as well (there were 3 then though) but those truly ran out of new material years ago.
Now its the EU (which is barely touched compared to this one) and the Vs. argument.
So many epic threads. Remember the add a point, subtract a point threads to your fav. character? General G spent hours and hours trying to save Grievous on those.
Originally posted by One Free Man
What's hilarious is when fellow creationists shun the inaccuracy of carbon-dating then use it to prove they found an artifact from the bible... IDIOTS. KEEP YOUR STORY STRAIGHT. 😠
Lol. Fill me in. What do creationists say regarding the "inaccuracy" of carbon dating?
"Fellow" Creationists?
I really hope you mean Old Earth Creationism.
In fact since I know you will demand I explain:
Radioisotopic dating works like this.
Atoms decay over time into lighter elements. Scientists know the rates of decay based on mountains of scientific evidence and measurements.
Consider the example of uranium, uranium has an atomic number of 92, meaning it has 92 protons. As decay happens, the element will lose protons, but keep the name number of neutrons. This means that it will decay into a isotope of a lighter element. This is how scientists can measure how old something is, because if they find an isotope of say lead (uranium decays into lead) that has the same number of neutrons as uranium, they can say how long it has been there because they know, that at one point, that element used to be uranium.
Certain elements with high atomic numbers (116-118) decay so fast that we can hardly measure their existence, while lighter elements with only a few protons will take billions of years to decay. We know this because scientists can extrapolate the numbers based on average rates of decay.
Some Young Earth Creationists argue that we can't know if the decay rates changed at some point, but if the rates did change, then that would mean the fundamental laws of physics as we know them are apparently subject to change (which is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.)
This is beside the point that scientists were using other methods to measure age that indicated the Earth was far older than believed long before we discovered radioisotopic dating.
Of course I explained this to my parents but they didn't believe it either, but whatever.