1. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    03 Jun '14 17:08
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The video presents evidence published in peer reviewed scientific journals, so your statement is obviously false.
    Get out of science.
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    03 Jun '14 17:445 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So show us the peer reviewed journals with YEC papers in them. I don't mean a YEC pseudoscience journal I mean a REAL one, like Nature.
    You didn't even bother to look at the video, because NATURE was one of those scientific journals that is mentioned for the publication of those papers.

    Here is how it begins:

    In 1977 the Research Communications Network published a special breakthrough report on the results of Dr. Gentry's scientific publications characterizing there implications as follows:

    Earth's current physical laws may not have governed the past. Earth's primordial crustal rocks, rather than cooling and solidifying over millions of years, crystallized almost instantaneously.

    Some geological formations thought to be one hundred million years old are in reality only several thousand years old. Grant these propositions - and any researcher will tell you - the entire structure of historical natural sciences would dissolve into formlessness. Few certainties would remain. Yet these very possibilities (and others equally challenging) have been suggested in a remarkable series of papers published over the past several years in the world's foremost scientific journals - Nature, Science, and Annual Review Of Nuclear Science, among others.
  3. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    04 Jun '14 08:03
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You didn't even bother to look at the video, because [b]NATURE was one of those scientific journals that is mentioned for the publication of those papers.

    Here is how it begins:

    In 1977 the Research Communications Network published a special breakthrough report on the results of Dr. Gentry's scientific publications characterizing there implications ...[text shortened]... t scientific journals - Nature, Science, and Annual Review Of Nuclear Science, among others.[/b][/b]
    no we didn't bother to look at the video because any such discovery that overturns two thousand years of science and discovery would be shown on the news, over and over.

    no pajama nutjob will discover the secrets of the universe then post them on youtube and call it a day.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    04 Jun '14 15:32
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    no we didn't bother to look at the video because any such discovery that overturns two thousand years of science and discovery would be shown on the news, over and over.

    no pajama nutjob will discover the secrets of the universe then post them on youtube and call it a day.
    It in no way overturns two thousand years of science and discovery, but is simply scientific evidence that supports that the earth may be only a few thousand years old.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    04 Jun '14 17:12
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It in no way overturns two thousand years of science and discovery, but is simply scientific evidence that supports that the earth may be only a few thousand years old.
    No troll.
  6. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    04 Jun '14 23:30
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It in no way overturns two thousand years of science and discovery, but is simply scientific evidence that supports that the earth may be only a few thousand years old.
    only a completely brainwashed moron would believe in a young earth.
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    04 Jun '14 23:33
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You didn't even bother to look at the video, because [b]NATURE was one of those scientific journals that is mentioned for the publication of those papers.

    Here is how it begins:

    In 1977 the Research Communications Network published a special breakthrough report on the results of Dr. Gentry's scientific publications characterizing there implications ...[text shortened]... t scientific journals - Nature, Science, and Annual Review Of Nuclear Science, among others.[/b][/b]
    we watched countless of videos from you. we patiently try to explain why they are all wrong, in detail, so that even a child could understand.


    you refused to even attempt to comprehend. because god might roast you in hell for believing the bible is not 100% literally true.

    let whoever is in need of a laugh watch your garbage. i am gonna troll each and every one of your threads that attempts to bring yec to the science forum.

    if you have no respect for us, i have none for you.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    05 Jun '14 03:58
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    we watched countless of videos from you. we patiently try to explain why they are all wrong, in detail, so that even a child could understand.


    you refused to even attempt to comprehend. because god might roast you in hell for believing the bible is not 100% literally true.

    let whoever is in need of a laugh watch your garbage. i am gonna troll each ...[text shortened]... empts to bring yec to the science forum.

    if you have no respect for us, i have none for you.
    You apparently have no respect for the truth either.
  9. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    05 Jun '14 07:29
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You apparently have no respect for the truth either.
    you have no truth for me to respect.



    how about you start respecting us: stop posting this garbage in the science forum, and i will respect your right to discuss it in spirituality.
  10. Joined
    30 Sep '12
    Moves
    731
    06 Jun '14 03:26
    Any thoughts on the age of craters on the moon?

    http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/tycho-the-metropolitan-crater-of-the-moon/

    If the idea is correct, an asteroid punched out Tycho Crater on the moon 109 million years ago. Days later dinosaurs may have been pelted with debris. Shwewh-ee!
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    06 Jun '14 04:21
    Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
    Any thoughts on the age of craters on the moon?

    http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/tycho-the-metropolitan-crater-of-the-moon/

    If the idea is correct, an asteroid punched out Tycho Crater on the moon 109 million years ago. Days later dinosaurs may have been pelted with debris. Shwewh-ee!
    According to them, radiometric dating is foolproof. So even a fool would believe it?
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    06 Jun '14 07:42
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    According to them, radiometric dating is foolproof. So even a fool would believe it?
    And according to you, the reason the moon is cool now is because it was inundated with water. So who is the fool now?
  13. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    06 Jun '14 07:44
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    According to them, radiometric dating is foolproof. So even a fool would believe it?
    fool proof means even a fool can't mess up using it.

    doesn't mean every fool can understand it.

    and if the fool is allergic to knowledge and views it as voodoo and refuses to touch it, well that's no longer anyone's fault except that particular fool's.
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    06 Jun '14 17:32
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    And according to you, the reason the moon is cool now is because it was inundated with water. So who is the fool now?
    That's a better theory than waiting 13 or 14 billion years.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    06 Jun '14 17:382 edits
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    fool proof means even a fool can't mess up using it.

    doesn't mean every fool can understand it.

    and if the fool is allergic to knowledge and views it as voodoo and refuses to touch it, well that's no longer anyone's fault except that particular fool's.
    That must mean evolution scientists are fools because they are the only ones that are fool enough to use radiometic dating on rocks and believe their own calculated results.
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