Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
59 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, ringo (2 members, 57 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Happy Birthday: Diomedes
Post Volume: Total: 877,679 Year: 9,427/23,288 Month: 442/1,544 Week: 156/561 Day: 59/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Validity of Radiometric Dating
jar
Member
Posts: 32661
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 28 of 200 (730354)
06-27-2014 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
06-27-2014 1:12 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
No way does a stack of disparate sediments represent time periods, that's nuts, nothing sensible about it. You can rationalize it all in terms of the Old Earth but it's a strain on common sense, and billions of fossils is just too perfectly the result of the worldwide Flood. Not to mention the other problems I've pointed out in the GC examples. No, the OE explanations do not make sense, you're just used to them.

Sorry Faith but it needs to be pointed out that you have NEVER presented the model, process, method or natural explanation the explains how your imaginary flood sorted fossils or materials as we see them in reality.

When you can present the model, process, natural explanation or methods we can discuss them. Until such time you are simply posting bullshit and falsehoods.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 1:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32661
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 46 of 200 (730378)
06-27-2014 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
06-27-2014 3:22 PM


why wiki may be a poor source
Sorry, this is getting confused. I'm not talking about that paper which is well enough organized and explained, I was talking about a Wikipedia article, I forget why now, about the K-T boundary as a typical example of how such phenomena are presented to laypeople. Definitely typical and definitely irritating.

Do you understand how Wiki works?

Edited by jar, : change sub-title


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 3:22 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 10:21 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32661
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 48 of 200 (730396)
06-27-2014 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
06-27-2014 10:21 PM


Re: why wiki may be a poor source
It's got nothing to do with Wikipedia as such. It's typical of popular accounts of Evolutionist and Old Earth conclusions: They do not bother with giving you any of their reasoning, it's only their conclusions stated as absolute fact. Just about the first post, or possibly the first, I made at EvC back in 2001 was a complaint about this way these sciences are presented to the public.

Popular accounts are just that, popular accounts. The reasoning is readily available even in that wiki article if you follow the footnotes.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 10:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020