Key assumptions about Earth and Radiometric Dating by Scientists are wrong.

[Jonahdog]

We can discuss scientific facts here without the need for any "scientific literature".

We all know why you misdirect in this way.

Sorta like discussing Christianity without the Bible. Wonder how that would work out?
your definition of misdirection is interesting. I request you support your very specific claim and you think I am misdirecting.
and who needs all that scientific background anyway.

 

[Right Divider]

Sorta like discussing Christianity without the Bible.

That's HILARIOUS. You just made the analogy of your "science literature" to the Bible.

Your holy books. :rotfl:

 

[Jonahdog]

You really missed the point? Thanks, enjoy your life, I have work to do, it is obvious that you cannot back up your specific claim post 142 I think. Until you can do so I suggest you think about making such specific claims. You are welcome to have the last word. I'm done. Go wash your hands.

 

[Right Divider]

You really missed the point? Thanks, enjoy your life, I have work to do, it is obvious that you cannot back up your specific claim post 142 I think. Until you can do so I suggest you think about making such specific claims. You are welcome to have the last word. I'm done. Go wash your hands.

You made a funny... :french:

You worship matter and science literature.

 

[Right Divider]

As I suggested, those immaterial things came to be because we thought about them, the result of chemistry and physics.

Funny as can be.

 

[marke]

Citation to the scientific literature please.

Abiogenesis is a pseudoscience that lacks evidentiary support.

 

[JudgeRightly]