Originally posted by KellyJayIt is, of course, a review paper. The original data is shown in the original papers. Probably, I can give you pdfs of them too. They probably base of previous studies, but, as I say, anything I can do to help.
I've started reading it, the worse you'll get is a delay when I come
back from our trip. Outside of that you'll get my views on the paper.
I'm already amazed at the events that are dated that are just said
as if they know for a fact they occured when.
Kelly
L
Originally posted by scottishinnzPlease do, I'll put them on my lap top and read them when I get a
It is, of course, a review paper. The original data is shown in the original papers. Probably, I can give you pdfs of them too. They probably base of previous studies, but, as I say, anything I can do to help.
L
chance. Worst case you'll have a million questions when I get back.
Kelly
Originally posted by josephwGod has fingers? The whole thing ( religion ) makes sense now. Why didn't i think of the finger theory?
I've repeatedly said that the age of the earth is probably older than we can imagine, but I also know that God could have snapped his fingers and created it old in a mere moment of time.
1 edit
Originally posted by smw6869Didn't you know, god is a man but about 50 feet tall and has a huge throne on the top of a mountain but not an earthly mountain.
God has fingers? The whole thing ( religion ) makes sense now. Why didn't i think of the finger theory?
You should see his tallywhacker....
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhy don't you just do us a favor and list the 20 methods used as well as all the different independent assumptions used as well?
It is, of course, a review paper. The original data is shown in the original papers. Probably, I can give you pdfs of them too. They probably base of previous studies, but, as I say, anything I can do to help.
L
And don't forget to say exactly how the results have validated the used assumptions.
Good luck.
Originally posted by Phuzudakathe earth is either old or it isn't. So it's a 50/50 bet then either way.
Why don't you just do us a favor and list the 20 methods used as well as all the different independent assumptions used as well?
And don't forget to say exactly how the results have validated the used assumptions.
Good luck.
Originally posted by PhuzudakaI tackled this all ready. I'll tell you what, I'll send you a copy of the Zhang pdf and YOU can try and refute it, if you will.
Why don't you just do us a favor and list the 20 methods used as well as all the different independent assumptions used as well?
And don't forget to say exactly how the results have validated the used assumptions.
Good luck.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhy don't you at least try to demonstrate that you have some elementary understanding of the Zhang paper yourself, and just highlight the 20 odd methods and assumptions used and say how the methods validate the made assumptions. Or is that asking too much?
I tackled this all ready. I'll tell you what, I'll send you a copy of the Zhang pdf and YOU can try and refute it, if you will.
I have no doubt that the circular reasoning used by Zhang is indeed very impressive, and certainly has bamboozled even yourself.
Originally posted by PhuzudakaI have a good understanding of Zhang's paper. His logic is not circular. Feel free to email me, and I'll send you a pdf copy. Kelly has accepted that challenge, won't you?
Why don't you at least try to demonstrate that you have some elementary understanding of Zhang paper yourself, and just highlight the 20 methods used and say how they validate the made assumptions. Or is that asking too much?
I have no doubt that the circular reasoning used by Zhang is indeed very impressive.
If not, please don't interrupt the grown ups.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell you certainly have not demonstrated any understanding of it, whatsoever.
I have a good understanding of Zhang's paper. His logic is not circular. Feel free to email me, and I'll send you a pdf copy. Kelly has accepted that challenge, won't you?
If not, please don't interrupt the grown ups.
To the contrary, you seem obsessed with making claims and chickening out when asked to produce the goods.
Whenever I have given you any links you simply resond: "Don't trust a word those Charlatans say! It all cr@p! blah di blah blah..."
At least try and back up your claims in the future it you want anyone to take you seriously. And simply sending people pdfs isn't cutting it at the moment. I could send you plenty of pdfs myself, which totally discredit the accuracy of radiometric dating. But sending each other pdfs isn't quite the way to debate is it?
But send me the pdf in anycase, I'll certainly take a look at it.
Originally posted by PhuzudakaSo send ME those proported refutes of radiometric dating. I would like to see them. dnphotonATptd.net
Well you certainly have not demonstrated any understanding of it, whatsoever.
To the contrary, you seem obsessed with making claims and chickening out when asked to produce the goods.
Whenever I have given you any links you simply resond: "Don't trust a word those Charlatans say! It all cr@p! blah di blah blah..."
At least try and back up your ...[text shortened]... way to debate is it?
But send me the pdf in anycase, I'll certainly take a look at it.