01 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseEvolutionists do not follow the scientific method to the letter for they never prove that their assumptions are correct. The merely declare them to be facts as if they are God.
They actually follow the scientific method to the letter. If evidence comes out there is a 200 million year old parakeet, all bets are off, otherwise the logic and evidence leads anyone not biased to pervert science to force a pre-conceived outcome, such as creationism. All you can do is point to more and more stupid video's which are every one bogus. If you post it, it is bogus.
02 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseSurely you must remember the assumptions I mentioned when referring to radiometric dating and you can find certain other assuptions listed here:
Show me your list of such baseless assumptions.
http://shanegarrison.org/2011/05/27/5-assumptions-of-evolution/
And here:
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-the-basic-assumptions-of-evolution/
And you can read this book:
The Assumptions Behind the Theory of Evolution: The Modern Theory of Evolution Isn't Dead - Because it was Never Really Alive!
The modern theory of Evolution stands upon certain assumptions, and has for over 150 years. It will no doubt surprise many to discover that these assumptions are unwarranted and unjustified by the evidence and in some instances even antagonistic to the evidence, therefore making them illegitimate. This book describes these assumptions, demonstrates why they are unwarranted and illegitimate, and asks why they have not been dropped as the Scientific Method of research demands. This work stands utilizing science alone without reference to religious books, and allows the facts to speak for themselves.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Assumptions-Behind-Theory-Evolution/dp/1434363228
03 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThis ground has been covered here and many other places before and there are no grounds for any such problems with radiometric dating. The ONLY thing wrong with those dating methods is it goes against Creationism and that is the ONLY thing wrong with it. So get over it, every real person already has.
Surely you must remember the assumptions I mentioned when referring to radiometric dating and you can find certain other assuptions listed here:
http://shanegarrison.org/2011/05/27/5-assumptions-of-evolution/
And here:
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-the-basic-assumptions-of-evolution/
And you can read this book:
[b]The Ass ...[text shortened]... k for themselves.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Assumptions-Behind-Theory-Evolution/dp/1434363228
03 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseRadiometric Dating Does Not Work
This ground has been covered here and many other places before and there are no grounds for any such problems with radiometric dating. The ONLY thing wrong with those dating methods is it goes against Creationism and that is the ONLY thing wrong with it. So get over it, every real person already has.
http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating
More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
How Radiometric Dating Does Not Work
05 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsHere is a little known fact, little known to creationists that is: when you do a date on a rock by say uranium isotope readings and come up with a date of say 100 million years old, but then date the exact same rock with another isotope, they agree. The gist of that is, as we have told you over and over and you know full well, geologists do not just depend on one dating technique, the science behind each one has to be independently tests and when one method says a rock is 100 million years old and another says it is 101 million years old and another says 98 million years old you can be confident the day is within reason, correct.
[b]Radiometric Dating Does Not Work
http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating
More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
How Radiometric Dating Does Not Work
[youtube]8MIqjPkWPQA[/youtube][/b]
Which of course will not be met by any argument of your own, only more bogus political based jack off video's.
06 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are ignorant or stupid if you think the different radiometic dating methods gives the same date on the same rock. 😏
Here is a little known fact, little known to creationists that is: when you do a date on a rock by say uranium isotope readings and come up with a date of say 100 million years old, but then date the exact same rock with another isotope, they agree. The gist of that is, as we have told you over and over and you know full well, geologists do not just depend ...[text shortened]... e will not be met by any argument of your own, only more bogus political based jack off video's.
06 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you wish, you can read for yourself the 9 different methods of geochronology:
You are ignorant or stupid if you think the different radiometic dating methods gives the same date on the same rock. 😏
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology
Just like tree ring dating, you don't understand that any better than any of the others.
Let me re-phrase that, you don't WANT to understand ANY dating method in tree rings, ice core or radiometric. If you understood them you would have to give up your mythology, something that will never happen so you will go to your grave totally ignorant.
06 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseTree ring dating do not show millions of years even if that dating method is accurate. With that method the oldest living tree can perhaps be dated to this side of Noah's flood at the most. 😏
If you wish, you can read for yourself the 9 different methods of geochronology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology
Just like tree ring dating, you don't understand that any better than any of the others.
Let me re-phrase that, you don't WANT to understand ANY dating method in tree rings, ice core or radiometric. If you understood them you ...[text shortened]... your mythology, something that will never happen so you will go to your grave totally ignorant.
07 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsGosh, I never knew that. I was so sure dating trees would take us back at LEAST 1 billion years or so. I guess you really think us so stupid we didn't know that. You don't even understand how you can take a forest and get a common dating by using several trees of different ages so you have zero rights to dis an entire science which you know nothing about.
Tree ring dating do not show millions of years even if that dating method is accurate. With that method the oldest living tree can perhaps be dated to this side of Noah's flood at the most. 😏
Of course that doesn't stop you from being pig headed and dis them anyway.
07 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseI have already given you proof that you can not do that, but you are so indoctinated with your evolution propaganda that you are like the two JWs that keep getting amnesia when their religious belief is disproved.
Gosh, I never knew that. I was so sure dating trees would take us back at LEAST 1 billion years or so. I guess you really think us so stupid we didn't know that. You don't even understand how you can take a forest and get a common dating by using several trees of different ages so you have zero rights to dis an entire science which you know nothing about.
Of course that doesn't stop you from being pig headed and dis them anyway.
08 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYou NEVER give proof. You ALWAYS give just opinions, NOTHING vigorous. Talk Talk Talk is not science. But then, you knew that before you posted your first bogus video. I still don't understand how you could debase yourself day in and day out in your vain attempt to convert people to your antique thinking.
I have already given you proof that you can not do that, but you are so indoctinated with your evolution propaganda that you are like the two JWs that keep getting amnesia when their religious belief is disproved.
08 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseTalk, talk, talk, claiming the theory of evolution is science fact is not proof. It is not even evidence. I, the Near Genius, at least give visual proof that evolution is nothing but lies and fraud and that it is only being supported by fake science papers and fake artifacts, but without any genuine facts or artifacts. 😏
You NEVER give proof. You ALWAYS give just opinions, NOTHING vigorous. Talk Talk Talk is not science. But then, you knew that before you posted your first bogus video. I still don't understand how you could debase yourself day in and day out in your vain attempt to convert people to your antique thinking.
11 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYOU didn't 'give' anything. YOU just presented bogus religious political pseudoscience nonsense cleverly designed to capture voters to further their vain efforts to topple evolution and force creationism to be taught as if it were a science.
Talk, talk, talk, claiming the theory of evolution is science fact is not proof. It is not even evidence. I, the Near Genius, at least give visual proof that evolution is nothing but lies and fraud and that it is only being supported by fake science papers and fake artifacts, but without any genuine facts or artifacts. 😏
That tactic will never work, despite all your nutter efforts.