Got it. Thanks
I think that's the quickest I've changed someone's mind about something ever, haha!
Got it. Thanks
Foolishness. Dawkins has been entirely consistent in his stance. He allows that he does not know with absolute certainty that there wasn't intelligent input during evolution but he is 99.99% sure there wasn't. You reward his acknowledgment that he is not an absolute arbiter of truth by saying he changed his mind? Try to think through the logic of what you claim before posting.Who's going to debate? Even Dawkins now admits maybe God was involved, just not the God of the Bible. Poor fellow is still under delusions about God.
If he would just say he has no clue about God and then shut up then there would be no problem. But when he admits he knows nothing about God and then insists the God of the Bible is wicked and does not exist he shows himself to be a bigot and a fool.Foolishness. Dawkins has been entirely consistent in his stance. He allows that he does not know with absolute certainty that there wasn't intelligent input during evolution but he is 99.99% sure there wasn't. You reward his acknowledgment that he is not an absolute arbiter of truth by saying he changed his mind? Try to think through the logic of what you claim before posting.
No clue means no evidence. No evidence means no justifiable belief.If he would just say he has no clue about God and then shut up then there would be no problem.
Have you read the old testament?But when he admits he knows nothing about God and then insists the God of the Bible is wicked and does not exist he shows himself to be a bigot and a fool.
I studdeyed they olt tesament usine evlynn wodds sped redding coarse.No clue means no evidence. No evidence means no justifiable belief.
Have you read the old testament?
Dave?I studdeyed they olt tesament usine evlynn wodds sped redding coarse.
No clue means no evidence. No evidence means no justifiable belief.
Have you read the old testament?
That's a good list of accomplished scientists. They do not parrot anything; they are deep thinkers.You have provided names of people who parrot erroneous old earth narratives, but who fail to prove those narratives are true.
That's a good list of accomplished scientists. They do not parrot anything; they are deep thinkers.
Preachers need no intelligence. They need only charisma and buzz words like a parrot. Why else is it possible for a 12 year old to do as good a job as an adult? There were no teenagers on my list.
You are one to talk. You come off like a stuttering bot. You 1) add a little reference to demons or Satan attributed to to 2) leftist or democratic groups 3) to whom ascribe intentional dishonesty and selfishness. Then when warranted you add either A) a heaping helping of false equivalency and B) the claim that nothing can be differentiated between obvious misdeed of those on your side because absolute proof of a negative statement cannot be achieved about the other side(it never can). You learn nothing and change little from post to post. Congrats.
Why didn't you say so?This thread is about determining the age of the earth. Can we get back on topic?
You read the OP.Why didn't you say so?
Radiometric dating is not a valid way to determine the age of the meteors or the earth.Geologists create an estimate of the earth's age by dating some of earth's meteors.
Evolutionists date earth rocks all of the time. Perhaps you should let them know that they are wrong.Dating rocks on the crust would be problematic because the surface of the earth goes through a cycle that involves going back and forth from igneous to metamorphic to sedimentary states.
That is an invalid assumption. We know for a fact (with verifiable scientific support) that decay rates are affected by various phenomenon.Dating is accomplished by measuring radioactive isotopes. The radiation decays at a predictable rate.
Random comments come in handy.A thermal ionization mass spectrometer comes in handy.
Radiometric dating is not a valid way to determine that age of the earth. It requires multiple unverifiable assumptions. Some of which are actually falsified.Your critique?
You could not prove a human estimation of the age of a meteor is accurate if your life depended on it. There is no way to date a meteor without relying heavily on at least one unproven assumption. There is no exception.Why didn't you say so?
Geologists create an estimate of the earth's age by dating some of earth's meteors. Dating rocks on the crust would be problematic because the surface of the earth goes through a cycle that involves going back and forth from igneous to metamorphic to sedimentary states.
Dating is accomplished by measuring radioactive isotopes. The radiation decays at a predictable rate. A thermal ionization mass spectrometer comes in handy.
Your critique?
You read the OP.
Radiometric dating is not a valid way to determine the age of the meteors or the earth.
Evolutionists date earth rocks all of the time. Perhaps you should let them know that they are wrong.
That is an invalid assumption. We know for a fact (with verifiable scientific support) that decay rates are affected by various phenomenon.
The assumptions are satisfied all reasonably. What are all the assumptions according to you?Radiometric dating is not a valid way to determine that age of the earth. It requires multiple unverifiable assumptions. Some of which are actually falsified.
You did no such thing.Yes, I did. And, I answered it specifically and completely but you didn't like it.
You should have focused on the topic and discussed some science.I should have focused on the title only.
No assertions, just facts.Save time in the future and add a "because. . ." after your bald assertions.
Duh.Dating the earth itself is more complicated.
No, we cannot. But nice assertion.We can rule out whether the adulterating phenomena occurred or not with a high level of certainty.
There are several well known assumptions.The assumptions are satisfied all reasonably. What are all the assumptions according to you?
LOL.Any measurement devise or any inferential statistic has assumptions. The assumptions can be readily confirmed.
Your analogies are funny and do not help your story.When your deli weighs up your potato salad, we assume the scale has been calibrated and a tare has been entered so you are not charged for the weight of the container. No reason to forgo your lunch over it.
Extrapolation again. Big time....Your critique?
Extrapolation can be very compelling. And, It beats fabrication every time.Extrapolation again. Big time.
Yes, even when it is completely unrealistic... if it is what you want to believe and are not concerned about facts.Extrapolation can be very compelling.
It IS fabrication in your case!And, It beats fabrication every time.
The theory of evolution has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with how the universe came into being.Exactly. Evolutionists insist the miracle of the big bang explains the sudden appearance of the universe from nothing and nowhere, thus refuting the Biblical account.