28 Feb '13 19:24>
Originally posted by RJHinds😴
It is part of the process of reproduction of the frog. It is like the baby embryo developing into a human being is part of the reproduction process designed by God, numbnuts!
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't take it on faith that the earth is 4.5 billion years old (you missed 500 million years there). I have seen the evidence from radiometric dating of rocks, I understand how that dating works and why and I have held a lump of the Allende meteorite that is 4.53 billion years old. Now that's a properly spiritual experience, holding a thing that formed just as the sun lit up.
Well, you guys take it on faith that the earth is 4 billion years old, so that is a wash IMO. 😏
Originally posted by KeplerYou apparently do not understand radiometric dating of rocks. The following is a video link explaining how it is supposed to work:
I don't take it on faith that the earth is 4.5 billion years old (you missed 500 million years there). I have seen the evidence from radiometric dating of rocks, I understand how that dating works and why and I have held a lump of the Allende meteorite that is 4.53 billion years old. Now that's a properly spiritual experience, holding a thing that formed just ...[text shortened]... g nonsense to the table. You can start by refuting quantum mechanics, I could do with a laugh.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe amount of uranium loss in rocks can be shown by the concordia-discordia relationship. I guess your great scientist didn't know that one. Your video was not meant to really establish truth. The sly reference to a flood as leeching out uranium was amusing as well, had to give a snicker on that one.
You apparently do not understand radiometric dating of rocks. The following is a video link explaining how it is supposed to work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo
Originally posted by RJHindsDid that come from "Geology for the intellectually impaired"? The only way you can refute radiometric dating is to falsify the underlying mechanisms of radioactive decay. I am still waiting for you to even attempt such a thing. I am sure you can find something out there. Try searching for "Particle physics for the gullible and hard of thinking".
You apparently do not understand radiometric dating of rocks. The following is a video link explaining how it is supposed to work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo
Originally posted by KeplerDid you watch that pathetic video? Did you get the feeling there were giant Q cards off camera so they could follow the script? They desperately need acting lessons.
Did that come from "Geology for the intellectually impaired"? The only way you can refute radiometric dating is to falsify the underlying mechanisms of radioactive decay. I am still waiting for you to even attempt such a thing. I am sure you can find something out there. Try searching for "Particle physics for the gullible and hard of thinking".
Originally posted by sonhouseI did watch it, it was pathetic and I got the feeling the actors had absolutely no idea what they were talking about, just reading the words. I don't think that sort of rubbish is produced to convince the non-believers, we're all going to hell anyway, but rather to stifle the curiosity of the zombies who believe.
Did you watch that pathetic video? Did you get the feeling there were giant Q cards off camera so they could follow the script? They desperately need acting lessons.
Originally posted by sonhouseTHE POINT you don't seem to get is that IT DOESN'T WORK in the real world like the theorist assume it will work. THEY ASSUME. That is THE POINT. 😏
The amount of uranium loss in rocks can be shown by the concordia-discordia relationship. I guess your great scientist didn't know that one. Your video was not meant to really establish truth. The sly reference to a flood as leeching out uranium was amusing as well, had to give a snicker on that one.
Why don't you read the REAL deal about radiometric da ...[text shortened]... . So read MY link and see what you can poo poo about that. Being a geological expert and all.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou guys claim to be able to perfectly understand how everything came into being by science. But in reality it turns out to be no more than a belief system.
I paused the video you posted at 'the probabilities of this occurring are beyond
comprehension'
'God' is beyond comprehension so why keep harping on about something you
admit to not understanding?
I would be more at ease if you made a clear differentiation between your own
belief in 'God' and the proposed entity that the bible describes.
Originally posted by humyThe scientists are supposed to know, but the evil-lution scientists only pretend to know. They are in fact guessing by assuming and setting up the guesses and assumptions as facts. Circular reasoning - a trade secret of the evil-lutionists. But I am on to their deception and am informing all who have eyes to see and ears to hear. 😏
That is clearly a lie; the scientists don't just 'assume', they know. While you choose not to.
Originally posted by RJHindsRadiometric dating is based on data gained from observation and experiment, as is all real science. There is no assuming happening, we leave that to the god botherers who have to assume that their fairy tale collection is correct because gathering evidence would likely be viewed as heretical.
THE POINT you don't seem to get is that IT DOESN'T WORK in the real world like the theorist assume it will work. THEY ASSUME. That is THE POINT. 😏
Originally posted by KeplerI agree that the radiometic dating could work, if the scientists did not have to make all the assumptions that are necessary for performing radiocarbon dating. The fact is that radiometric dating has proven unreliable, because very few things fit within the parameters necessary for accurate dating.
Radiometric dating is based on data gained from observation and experiment, as is all real science. There is no assuming happening, we leave that to the god botherers who have to assume that their fairy tale collection is correct because gathering evidence would likely be viewed as heretical.
Any chance you will actually produce some evidence to back up your assumptions? No? Back under your bridge then Mr. Troll.
Originally posted by RJHindsRadiocarbon dating is problematic because carbon 14 production is related to solar activity. We don't have historical records of solar activity going back far enough so the radiocarbon record has to be calibrated with tree ring data. That problem does not affect other radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium. Those are the elements that give the 4.5 billion year age of the earth, not carbon 14.
I agree that the radiometic dating could work, if the scientists did not have to make all the assumptions that are necessary for performing radiocarbon dating. The fact is that radiometric dating has proven unreliable, because very few things fit within the parameters necessary for accurate dating.
Originally posted by Keplerhttp://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/39158
Radiocarbon dating is problematic because carbon 14 production is related to solar activity. We don't have historical records of solar activity going back far enough so the radiocarbon record has to be calibrated with tree ring data. That problem does not affect other radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium. Those are the elements that give the 4.5 b ...[text shortened]... the earth, not carbon 14.
Now, have you get any evidence that any assuming is going on here?