17 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThere is no way to measure rock to be millions of years old. That is all guess work. My guess is the rock layers they are buried in are only 3 to 6 thousand years old. Prove me wrong. 😏
There is this tiny detail that dino bones are buried in rock measured to be some hundred million years or more, and all you can do is poo poo the time scale but that is a fact, not pseudoscience like your YEC's conjure up.
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThat would not be hard but you would just poo poo any science evidence, like the fact the latest astronomy results show the gravitational constant and other fundamental constants to have not changed by more than a part in a billion over the last 5 billion years, but of course from your twisted anti-science POV NOTHING can be provided in terms of evidence refuting your ridiculous 6K year old Earth so I am not going to even bother.
There is no way to measure rock to be millions of years old. That is all guess work. My guess is the rock layers they are buried in are only 3 to 6 thousand years old. Prove me wrong. 😏
On the off hand possibility, admittedly small, that you might actually be interested in learning something, you could just google 'radiometric dating of rocks' and read but I know for a fact you would never stoop to such a low level as to actually learning something new.
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThere you go pulling 5 billion years out of your ass again. I am already highly educated on radiometeric dating methods and have posted much material on RHP before revealing the problems with all of them and why they are not reliable for dating anything in the million and billion age ranges. So you can just forget about those methods because others have show they don't work for millions of years. One may calculate dates that come out to millions and billions of years, but those dates are not worth the time used in getting those calculations when it comes to determining the age of rocks. That is just the fact, Jack. 😏
That would not be hard but you would just poo poo any science evidence, like the fact the latest astronomy results show the gravitational constant and other fundamental constants to have not changed by more than a part in a billion over the last 5 billion years, but of course from your twisted anti-science POV NOTHING can be provided in terms of evidence re ...[text shortened]... know for a fact you would never stoop to such a low level as to actually learning something new.
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsHighly educated on radiometric dates. What you mean is you simply parrot the YEC POV with pseudoscience jerk off video's that have nothing to do with science, but having 100% to do with garnering votes, a political ploy in their latest tactic to force creationism to be taught in a science classroom.
There you go pulling 5 billion years out of your ass again. I am already highly educated on radiometeric dating methods and have posted much material on RHP before revealing the problems with all of them and why they are not reliable for dating anything in the million and billion age ranges. So you can just forget about those methods because others have s ...[text shortened]... ose calculations when it comes to determining the age of rocks. That is just the fact, Jack. 😏
All you believe is what you WANT to believe, you refuse to even LOOK at the refutations of YEC bullshyte. Refutations that have been done a hundred times over but you are just too pure to read it. 'Don't confuse me with facts, my (so-called) mind is made up".
Your MO, a parroting one trick pony and you would be ever so much happier in the days of the inquisition, ESPECIALLY if you were the inquisitor.
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseIt seems like you are describing yourself to me. I am open to all the new discoveries in science. I just don't follow the stupid evolution fairy tale crap of millions of years. 😏
Highly educated on radiometric dates. What you mean is you simply parrot the YEC POV with pseudoscience jerk off video's that have nothing to do with science, but having 100% to do with garnering votes, a political ploy in their latest tactic to force creationism to be taught in a science classroom.
All you believe is what you WANT to believe, you refus ...[text shortened]... d be ever so much happier in the days of the inquisition, ESPECIALLY if you were the inquisitor.
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, you diss ALL science when you diss evolution because genetics, geology, dendrochronology, nuclear radiometric dating of rocks, C14 dating all rely on the exact same scientific principles guiding all the other sciences you claim to love. You cannot diss one without dissing them all. It doesn't work that way.
It seems like you are describing yourself to me. I am open to all the new discoveries in science. I just don't follow the stupid evolution fairy tale crap of millions of years. 😏
The ONLY reason you diss those sciences refuting your silly 6K year old earth is BECAUSE it refutes your buddies ANALYSIS of the bible. The actual age of the Earth is NEVER spelled out in the bible so you are just parroting other HUMANS, not anything from your so-called god.
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseOne can calculate the age of the earth using recorded historical information with a much higher degree of accuracy than by using unproven evolutionary assumption methods. Genetics and geology do not require evolution to get it right. In fact, using evolutionary thinking is a sure way to get it wrong.
No, you diss ALL science when you diss evolution because genetics, geology, dendrochronology, nuclear radiometric dating of rocks, C14 dating all rely on the exact same scientific principles guiding all the other sciences you claim to love. You cannot diss one without dissing them all. It doesn't work that way.
The ONLY reason you diss those sciences re ...[text shortened]... d out in the bible so you are just parroting other HUMANS, not anything from your so-called god.
20 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsONLY if you are biblical literalist. That makes it just the opinion of some men who did some calculations based on the idea the bible can NEVER be wrong.
One can calculate the age of the earth using recorded historical information with a much higher degree of accuracy than by using unproven evolutionary assumption methods. Genetics and geology do not require evolution to get it right. In fact, using evolutionary thinking is a sure way to get it wrong.
20 Aug 15
In the British Museum, I held in my hand the oldest human tool. It is more than 1.8 million years old. Looking at it and turning it over in my hand, there was no doubt that the date was accurate.
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe/s/olduvai_stone_chopping_tool.aspx
20 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Holy Bible has not been wrong when honestly checked out. For example:
ONLY if you are biblical literalist. That makes it just the opinion of some men who did some calculations based on the idea the bible can NEVER be wrong.
Ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah Found !
20 Aug 15
Originally posted by WulebgrThat is the kind of scientific testing accepted easily by evolutionists, but rejected by one that has common sense. 😏
In the British Museum, I held in my hand the oldest human tool. It is more than 1.8 million years old. Looking at it and turning it over in my hand, there was no doubt that the date was accurate.
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe/s/olduvai_stone_chopping_tool.aspx
21 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThe only thing I've seen you post are links to videos that are worse than infomercials. They are dull, one sided, generally dishonest, and mostly attack strawmen.
I ... have posted much material on RHP before revealing the problems with all of them and why they are not reliable for dating anything in the million and billion age ranges.