1. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Australia
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    385962
    02 Mar '13 01:22
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/39158
    That's the second time you've posted that quote. It isn't any more relevant than it was the first time.
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    02 Mar '13 08:52
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/39158
    So radiometric dating is wrong because the entire world is subject to ultrasonic vibrations? Wow, wut a revalation.

    I would think you would be embarrassed posting that drivel on a science forum.
  3. Standard memberKepler
    Demon Duck
    of Doom!
    Joined
    20 Aug '06
    Moves
    20099
    02 Mar '13 10:43
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So radiometric dating is wrong because the entire world is subject to ultrasonic vibrations? Wow, wut a revalation.

    I would think you would be embarrassed posting that drivel on a science forum.
    I think he is too limited intellectually to be embarrassed.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree