Originally posted by RJHinds All those dating methods that give million and billions of years as the resulting dates are obviously flawed when the things being dated are known to be nowhere near that old. The scientific community knows they are all flawed and still use them, because they are easy to do and they give the kind of old age dates they need to support evolution.
The Instructor
So now the entire science of geology is subservient to evolution? Everything they say and do, is a secret conspiracy designed to utterly defeat creationism and make the lies of evolution the law of the land? Geologists are now owned by evolutionists?
Originally posted by sonhouse So now the entire science of geology is subservient to evolution? Everything they say and do, is a secret conspiracy designed to utterly defeat creationism and make the lies of evolution the law of the land? Geologists are now owned by evolutionists?
Hey, that works for me🙂
I seriously wonder if he has the slightest clue that the vast majority of people are never convinced by his delusional ravings here and never will be and see his delusional ravings as just that and from an extremely stupid but arrogant and opinionated bully and its only a very tiny minority of crazed religious nuts that are moronic and delusional enough to actually give some of what he says any credence.
Originally posted by sonhouse So now the entire science of geology is subservient to evolution? Everything they say and do, is a secret conspiracy designed to utterly defeat creationism and make the lies of evolution the law of the land? Geologists are now owned by evolutionists?
I love the table of comparisons between "rocks of known age" and the radiometric data.
The "russian volcano" according to your own data, has a "known age" of 24000 years. Isn't that about 4x longer than the actual age of the earth, according to you?
Originally posted by forkedknight I love the table of comparisons between "rocks of known age" and the radiometric data.
The "russian volcano" according to your own data, has a "known age" of 24000 years. Isn't that about 4x longer than the actual age of the earth, according to you?
It would be obvious to most people that this is what is believed to be the known age from historical or archaeological data and not necessarily ages that are truely known in fact. These charts are just showing how the dating methods differ so greatly and all the radiometric dating methods give deferent and hughly inflated ages from what is known to be given by histrorical and archaeological data, which are more likely to be closer to the true age. Maybe you can understand better from this video:
Originally posted by RJHinds It would be obvious to most people that this is what is believed to be the known age from historical or archaeological data and not necessarily ages that are truely known in fact. These charts are just showing how the dating methods differ so greatly and all the radiometric dating methods give deferent and hughly inflated ages from what is known to be given ...[text shortened]... view however.
You wouldn't know a fact if it came up and bit you on the ass. If we put you in a time machine and went back while in orbit around the sun away from Earth and saw the years fall back ten years per second and then it just kept going long past your stupid 6000 year mark, you would just claim it was all faked in Hollywood.
Originally posted by sonhouse You wouldn't know a fact if it came up and bit you on the ass. If we put you in a time machine and went back while in orbit around the sun away from Earth and saw the years fall back ten years per second and then it just kept going long past your stupid 6000 year mark, you would just claim it was all faked in Hollywood.
Originally posted by RJHinds More evidence the dating method is wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPynJVPq74Q
The Instructor
We want look at that video because we know it is stupid.
Instead of making a baseless assertion and then just showing an extremely stupid video made by stupid people that proves nothing, why don't you just for once at least try, without any copy and post, and using your own words only, show us that you ARE capable of independent thought by explaining a logically valid argument for your assertion?
If you can do that, we would not laugh at you and for once respect your claim.
If you cannot, prove that you are honest by admitting you are wrong.
Originally posted by humy We want look at that video because we know it is stupid.
Instead of making a baseless assertion and then just showing an extremely stupid video made by stupid people that proves nothing, why don't you just for once at least try, without any copy and post, and using your own words only, show us that you ARE capable of independent thought by explai ...[text shortened]... once respect your claim.
If you cannot, prove that you are honest by admitting you are wrong.
This just proves that you are not honest enough to admit you are wrong. I was only pointing out that there are scientists who have been investingating why the radiometric dating methods are so inconsistent and give such wildly inflated dates; and they have made some discoveries that give some explanation why these dating methods are not dependable and are so wrong.
However, he evilutionists are not willing to be honest and admit to that fact, because they need long periods of time and these are the only methods that give them enough time.
Originally posted by RJHinds This just proves that you are not honest enough to admit you are wrong. I was only pointing out that there are scientists who have been investingating why the radiometric dating methods are so inconsistent and give such wildly inflated dates; and they have made some discoveries that give some explanation why these dating methods are not dependable and are s ...[text shortened]... ong periods of time and these are the only methods that give them enough time.
The Instructor
I have told you my original idea on why the Earth is old. The moon would be molten red hot if it were only 6000 years old because it was formed from the Earth via a large planet hitting Earth. We know that for a fact because humans brought back 900 pounds of lunar rock and analyzing them shows they are made of exactly the same thing as Earth's crust. From that time, 6000 years later both Earth and Luna would be molten hot. It is not on either world. So they are both WAY older than your stupid 6000 years old. That is what Humy means for you to come up with arguments from your own mind. Put your money where your mouth is or give it up.
Originally posted by sonhouse I have told you my original idea on why the Earth is old. The moon would be molten red hot if it were only 6000 years old because it was formed from the Earth via a large planet hitting Earth. We know that for a fact because humans brought back 900 pounds of lunar rock and analyzing them shows they are made of exactly the same thing as Earth's crust. From t ...[text shortened]... to come up with arguments from your own mind. Put your money where your mouth is or give it up.
Oh, I could come up with just as stupid an idea as you, if I wanted to. However, this is the Science Forum and I am interested in what is true and not one of the evilutionist's fairy tales.
It does not take long at all to cool off molten iron, if put under water. The blacksmiths of years past knew all about this. Why don't you? Haven't you ever seen a cowboy movie when you were young and see the town blacksmith stick the piece of iron that he was forming into a horseshoe into water?
Originally posted by RJHinds Oh, I could come up with just as stupid an idea as you, if I wanted to. However, this is the Science Forum and I am interested in what is true and not one of the evilutionist's fairy tales.
It does not take long at all to cool off molten iron, if put under water. The blacksmiths of years past knew all about this. Why don't you? Haven't you ever seen a ...[text shortened]... th stick the piece of iron that he was forming into a horseshoe into water?
The Instructor
Wow, I did not know the moon got cooled off by dunking the whole thing underwater. Who would have known?
Originally posted by RJHinds I believe the moon was probably cooled by the same method the earth was, that is, by being covered with water.
The instructor
The moon doesn't have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere let alone one thick enough to allow water to exist in liquid form anywhere on its surface. This also means it would be physically impossible for it to rain liquid water on the moon.
Any water on the surface of the moon would instantly turn in gaseous form (water vapor) and immediately escape to outer space and out of the moon's gravitational field. So simple basic physics renders your claim absurd.
Plus, if there was once massive of water on the moon that cooled it down, there would be physical evidence in the rocks for this vast flooding of water and yet we see none. And why don't we see the dried out river beds when we look at the moon through our telescopes? or salt beds as a result of oceans evaporating off their water? and other features such as signs of water erosion etc that we would expect to see on its surface if there was once water there? -there is just so much wrong with your absurd claim.
Originally posted by humy The moon doesn't have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere let alone one thick enough to allow water to exist in liquid form anywhere on its surface. This also means it would be physically impossible for it to rain liquid water on the moon.
Any water on the surface of the moon would instantly turn in gaseous form (water vapor) and immediately escape to outer ...[text shortened]... s surface if there was once water there? -there is just so much wrong with your absurd claim.
"The moon doesn't have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere let alone one thick enough to allow water to exist in liquid form anywhere on its surface."
Turning evolution on its head:
12 Aug '13 17:521 edit
YouTube
Back to Top