5 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseYou 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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by RJHindsno 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.
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 pajama nutjob will discover the secrets of the universe then post them on youtube and call it a day.
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt 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 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.
Originally posted by RJHindswe 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 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]
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.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou apparently have no respect for the truth either.
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.
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!
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIAccording to them, radiometric dating is foolproof. So even a fool would believe it?
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!
Originally posted by RJHindsfool proof means even a fool can't mess up using it.
According to them, radiometric dating is foolproof. So even a fool would believe 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.
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziThat 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.
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.