Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

And this might be important, if when dating fossils scientists claimed the ability to accurately determine age to the hour.

Your comparison of dating methods continues to be extremely foolish.

Not foolish, but logical and reality.

So it is logical to compare a dating method that deals with tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or one that deals with millions of years, with a method that deals with hours? And it is logical to assume that, since the one method is only accurate under certain circumstances, the other, completely different method cannot be accurate?

Finding a time of death for a body is completely different from dating a fossil. If you cannot see that, you are clearly being foolish. Go do just a minimal internet search on fossil dating methods and the methods for determining time of death.

So you are saying presuppositions are not used in dating methods ?

 

[Montrovant]

Not foolish, but logical and reality.

So it is logical to compare a dating method that deals with tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or one that deals with millions of years, with a method that deals with hours? And it is logical to assume that, since the one method is only accurate under certain circumstances, the other, completely different method cannot be accurate?

Finding a time of death for a body is completely different from dating a fossil. If you cannot see that, you are clearly being foolish. Go do just a minimal internet search on fossil dating methods and the methods for determining time of death.

So you are saying presuppositions are not used in dating methods ?

No, I am saying that determining time of death is irrelevant when discussing the validity of radiometric dating methods.

I am saying that when you compare the two and try to use the accuracy of forensic time of death determinations to say something about the accuracy of radiometric dating, you are being ridiculous.

I will also say that the presupposition used in radiometric dating would seem to be that the rate of decay remains constant; or put another way, that physics has remained constant. If you consider that an unfair assumption, that's your own issue.

I will also say that I believe your own presuppositions prevent you from being able to look at dating methods with anything approaching objectivity.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So it is logical to compare a dating method that deals with tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or one that deals with millions of years, with a method that deals with hours? And it is logical to assume that, since the one method is only accurate under certain circumstances, the other, completely different method cannot be accurate?

Finding a time of death for a body is completely different from dating a fossil. If you cannot see that, you are clearly being foolish. Go do just a minimal internet search on fossil dating methods and the methods for determining time of death.

So you are saying presuppositions are not used in dating methods ?

No, I am saying that determining time of death is irrelevant when discussing the validity of radiometric dating methods.

I am saying that when you compare the two and try to use the accuracy of forensic time of death determinations to say something about the accuracy of radiometric dating, you are being ridiculous.

I will also say that the presupposition used in radiometric dating would seem to be that the rate of decay remains constant; or put another way, that physics has remained constant. If you consider that an unfair assumption, that's your own issue.

I will also say that I believe your own presuppositions prevent you from being able to look at dating methods with anything approaching objectivity.

If all things remained constant you would have an argument but that is not the case.

For one we don't know the enviornment of 6,000 years ago let alone millions or billions of years ago.

The moon is slowly receding from earth and the earths rotation is gradually slowing according to scientists. If this is the case would that not affect the enviornment ? If it's been slowing for billions of years would that not be an effect on the enviornment billions of years ago.

The point is they are using presuppositions and circular reasoning with their dating methods. Not being able to prove any of their assumptions about the enviornment many years ago. The only one being silly here is the one ignoring changes going on with the moon and sun and thinking that would not affect the enviornment. I guess you have not considered the changes with the polar ice caps ?

So silly is believing how old a fossil is but can't be exact about the time of death of a person from an enviornment that you do know and can prove what it was like.

 

[Montrovant]

So you are saying presuppositions are not used in dating methods ?

No, I am saying that determining time of death is irrelevant when discussing the validity of radiometric dating methods.

I am saying that when you compare the two and try to use the accuracy of forensic time of death determinations to say something about the accuracy of radiometric dating, you are being ridiculous.

I will also say that the presupposition used in radiometric dating would seem to be that the rate of decay remains constant; or put another way, that physics has remained constant. If you consider that an unfair assumption, that's your own issue.

I will also say that I believe your own presuppositions prevent you from being able to look at dating methods with anything approaching objectivity.

If all things remained constant you would have an argument but that is not the case.

For one we don't know the enviornment of 6,000 years ago let alone millions or billions of years ago.

The moon is slowly receding from earth and the earths rotation is gradually slowing according to scientists. If this is the case would that not affect the enviornment ? If it's been slowing for billions of years would that not be an effect on the enviornment billions of years ago.

The point is they are using presuppositions and circular reasoning with their dating methods. Not being able to prove any of their assumptions about the enviornment many years ago. The only one being silly here is the one ignoring changes going on with the moon and sun and thinking that would not affect the enviornment. I guess you have not considered the changes with the polar ice caps ?

So silly is believing how old a fossil is but can't be exact about the time of death of a person from an enviornment that you do know and can prove what it was like.

Once again, YOU ARE COMPARING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATING. First, the accuracy of radiometric dating is not a matter of hours, as is the case for trying to determine time of death. Have you ever seen someone claim they can accurately determine the age of a fossil to the hour? No? Then stop trying to make it seem as though that's the case! Second, why do you say time of death determinations can't be exact? By what reasoning do you come to this conclusion? Is it because they aren't accurate to the second, or to the minute? You keep saying time of death determinations are inaccurate but fail to provide any evidence that is the case. As I understand it there are a number of different types of evidence used to determine time of death which are accurate within certain time frames.

As far as your speculation about the changing environment and it's affect on dating, here's an article about experiments done to see if certain environmental changes (specifically to do with the sun) might skew the results :
Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable
This would seem to indicate that scientists involved with dating DO try to take into account the possibility of different environments having an affect on the accuracy of radiometric dating.

So you have provided no evidence and only the vaguest speculation that observed decay rates are not constant, which is your rationale for the inaccuracy of radiometric dating; you have provided no evidence or even a reason why you consider time of death determinations to be inaccurate; you have provided no real link between these two completely different dating methods to explain how they support your arguments; and you have seemingly ignored how your own presuppositions about the age of the earth, based on your religious belief, make it difficult if not impossible for you to credit most fossil dating methods in the first place. Perhaps you should work on your arguments a bit before you post.

 

[daws101]

So you don't understand dating methods,should have known it.

ahh.... wrong the rub here is you don't understand the question.

Alright let's just show how you don't understand your own question shall we.

If you start with the assumption that life has not been around for very long let's say 12,000 years it will Affect how your dating methods work.

If you presuppose that life has been on this planet for a very long time the same will happen.

If you presuppose the universe and the earth is very old it to will be affected by the dating methnods used.

Let me give you a few articles that point out presuppositions used in dating methods.

Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis

RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old?

www.answers101.org/articles/isotipicdating.pdf

since all your "answers" are based a psudo science false premise they are meaning less.
you are still dodging my question, how does one presuppose time?

Definition of PRESUPPOSE
transitive verb
1: to suppose beforehand
2: to require as an antecedent in logic or fact
— pre·sup·po·si·tion \(&#716prē-ˌsə-pə-ˈzi-shən\ noun

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, I am saying that determining time of death is irrelevant when discussing the validity of radiometric dating methods.

I am saying that when you compare the two and try to use the accuracy of forensic time of death determinations to say something about the accuracy of radiometric dating, you are being ridiculous.

I will also say that the presupposition used in radiometric dating would seem to be that the rate of decay remains constant; or put another way, that physics has remained constant. If you consider that an unfair assumption, that's your own issue.

I will also say that I believe your own presuppositions prevent you from being able to look at dating methods with anything approaching objectivity.

If all things remained constant you would have an argument but that is not the case.

For one we don't know the enviornment of 6,000 years ago let alone millions or billions of years ago.

The moon is slowly receding from earth and the earths rotation is gradually slowing according to scientists. If this is the case would that not affect the enviornment ? If it's been slowing for billions of years would that not be an effect on the enviornment billions of years ago.

The point is they are using presuppositions and circular reasoning with their dating methods. Not being able to prove any of their assumptions about the enviornment many years ago. The only one being silly here is the one ignoring changes going on with the moon and sun and thinking that would not affect the enviornment. I guess you have not considered the changes with the polar ice caps ?

So silly is believing how old a fossil is but can't be exact about the time of death of a person from an enviornment that you do know and can prove what it was like.

Once again, YOU ARE COMPARING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATING. First, the accuracy of radiometric dating is not a matter of hours, as is the case for trying to determine time of death. Have you ever seen someone claim they can accurately determine the age of a fossil to the hour? No? Then stop trying to make it seem as though that's the case! Second, why do you say time of death determinations can't be exact? By what reasoning do you come to this conclusion? Is it because they aren't accurate to the second, or to the minute? You keep saying time of death determinations are inaccurate but fail to provide any evidence that is the case. As I understand it there are a number of different types of evidence used to determine time of death which are accurate within certain time frames.

As far as your speculation about the changing environment and it's affect on dating, here's an article about experiments done to see if certain environmental changes (specifically to do with the sun) might skew the results :
Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable
This would seem to indicate that scientists involved with dating DO try to take into account the possibility of different environments having an affect on the accuracy of radiometric dating.

So you have provided no evidence and only the vaguest speculation that observed decay rates are not constant, which is your rationale for the inaccuracy of radiometric dating; you have provided no evidence or even a reason why you consider time of death determinations to be inaccurate; you have provided no real link between these two completely different dating methods to explain how they support your arguments; and you have seemingly ignored how your own presuppositions about the age of the earth, based on your religious belief, make it difficult if not impossible for you to credit most fossil dating methods in the first place. Perhaps you should work on your arguments a bit before you post.

First off i am on record saying I don't know how old the earth is and how long life has been on the earth. I am not ignoring different methods are used in trying to determine the time of death of a person. Common sense has to come into play though. If they can't perfect determining the time of death of a person what makes you think they can perfect the dating methods that determine the age of a fossil or a rock ?

Why do I need a link to show that they say a person died between this time and that time,that is not exact nor are dating methods.

If you look back through time the age of the earth has changed,how long life has been on this planet has changed, The age of the universe has changed. But evolutionists knew that according to the theory of evolution that it could not happen in such a short period of time. That is where their presuppositions determine the age of fossils and rocks.

We know it don't take long for fossils and rocks to form and that is a fact.

So faith plays a role in your views as well as mine.

 

[Montrovant]

If all things remained constant you would have an argument but that is not the case.

For one we don't know the enviornment of 6,000 years ago let alone millions or billions of years ago.

The moon is slowly receding from earth and the earths rotation is gradually slowing according to scientists. If this is the case would that not affect the enviornment ? If it's been slowing for billions of years would that not be an effect on the enviornment billions of years ago.

The point is they are using presuppositions and circular reasoning with their dating methods. Not being able to prove any of their assumptions about the enviornment many years ago. The only one being silly here is the one ignoring changes going on with the moon and sun and thinking that would not affect the enviornment. I guess you have not considered the changes with the polar ice caps ?

So silly is believing how old a fossil is but can't be exact about the time of death of a person from an enviornment that you do know and can prove what it was like.

Once again, YOU ARE COMPARING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATING. First, the accuracy of radiometric dating is not a matter of hours, as is the case for trying to determine time of death. Have you ever seen someone claim they can accurately determine the age of a fossil to the hour? No? Then stop trying to make it seem as though that's the case! Second, why do you say time of death determinations can't be exact? By what reasoning do you come to this conclusion? Is it because they aren't accurate to the second, or to the minute? You keep saying time of death determinations are inaccurate but fail to provide any evidence that is the case. As I understand it there are a number of different types of evidence used to determine time of death which are accurate within certain time frames.

As far as your speculation about the changing environment and it's affect on dating, here's an article about experiments done to see if certain environmental changes (specifically to do with the sun) might skew the results :
Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable
This would seem to indicate that scientists involved with dating DO try to take into account the possibility of different environments having an affect on the accuracy of radiometric dating.

So you have provided no evidence and only the vaguest speculation that observed decay rates are not constant, which is your rationale for the inaccuracy of radiometric dating; you have provided no evidence or even a reason why you consider time of death determinations to be inaccurate; you have provided no real link between these two completely different dating methods to explain how they support your arguments; and you have seemingly ignored how your own presuppositions about the age of the earth, based on your religious belief, make it difficult if not impossible for you to credit most fossil dating methods in the first place. Perhaps you should work on your arguments a bit before you post.

First off i am on record saying I don't know how old the earth is and how long life has been on the earth. I am not ignoring different methods are used in trying to determine the time of death of a person. Common sense has to come into play though. If they can't perfect determining the time of death of a person what makes you think they can perfect the dating methods that determine the age of a fossil or a rock ?

Why do I need a link to show that they say a person died between this time and that time,that is not exact nor are dating methods.

If you look back through time the age of the earth has changed,how long life has been on this planet has changed, The age of the universe has changed. But evolutionists knew that according to the theory of evolution that it could not happen in such a short period of time. That is where their presuppositions determine the age of fossils and rocks.

We know it don't take long for fossils and rocks to form and that is a fact.

So faith plays a role in your views as well as mine.

Holy crap! Stop repeating the same ridiculousness, please!

No one has claimed perfection in either radiometric dating or time of death determination. However, the fact that we cannot perfectly determine the instant someone died has nothing to do with fossil dating methods! NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! If we were able to 'perfectly' determine the timing of either type of dating, it would not matter to the other.

How is it common sense to say, "These two methods of determining time are not only completely different in method, but involve extremely different measurements of time. However, because one is not perfect, it must mean the other is not perfect, either. Even though no one has claimed either to be perfect."

If you believe that radioactive decay is not constant, fine. That doesn't mean blaming evolutionists for the discovery of radiation and the discovery of how certain isotopes break down at a steady rate makes sense.

Oh, and you say you don't know the age of the earth....does that mean you could accept it's age at billions of years? Could you accept that life has been around for billions of years? Everything I recall from you would make me believe otherwise.

 

[Youwerecreated]

ahh.... wrong the rub here is you don't understand the question.

Alright let's just show how you don't understand your own question shall we.

If you start with the assumption that life has not been around for very long let's say 12,000 years it will Affect how your dating methods work.

If you presuppose that life has been on this planet for a very long time the same will happen.

If you presuppose the universe and the earth is very old it to will be affected by the dating methnods used.

Let me give you a few articles that point out presuppositions used in dating methods.

Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis

RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old?

www.answers101.org/articles/isotipicdating.pdf

since all your "answers" are based a psudo science false premise they are meaning less.
you are still dodging my question, how does one presuppose time?

Definition of PRESUPPOSE
transitive verb
1: to suppose beforehand
2: to require as an antecedent in logic or fact
— pre·sup·po·si·tion \(&#716prē-ˌsə-pə-ˈzi-shən\ noun

You got it answered.

 

[daws101]

Alright let's just show how you don't understand your own question shall we.

If you start with the assumption that life has not been around for very long let's say 12,000 years it will Affect how your dating methods work.

If you presuppose that life has been on this planet for a very long time the same will happen.

If you presuppose the universe and the earth is very old it to will be affected by the dating methnods used.

Let me give you a few articles that point out presuppositions used in dating methods.

Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis

RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old?

www.answers101.org/articles/isotipicdating.pdf

since all your "answers" are based a psudo science false premise they are meaning less.
you are still dodging my question, how does one presuppose time?

Definition of PRESUPPOSE
transitive verb
1: to suppose beforehand
2: to require as an antecedent in logic or fact
— pre·sup·po·si·tion \(&#716prē-ˌsə-pə-ˈzi-shən\ noun

You got it answered.

right!

 

[HUGGY]

Once again, YOU ARE COMPARING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATING. First, the accuracy of radiometric dating is not a matter of hours, as is the case for trying to determine time of death. Have you ever seen someone claim they can accurately determine the age of a fossil to the hour? No? Then stop trying to make it seem as though that's the case! Second, why do you say time of death determinations can't be exact? By what reasoning do you come to this conclusion? Is it because they aren't accurate to the second, or to the minute? You keep saying time of death determinations are inaccurate but fail to provide any evidence that is the case. As I understand it there are a number of different types of evidence used to determine time of death which are accurate within certain time frames.

As far as your speculation about the changing environment and it's affect on dating, here's an article about experiments done to see if certain environmental changes (specifically to do with the sun) might skew the results :
Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable
This would seem to indicate that scientists involved with dating DO try to take into account the possibility of different environments having an affect on the accuracy of radiometric dating.

So you have provided no evidence and only the vaguest speculation that observed decay rates are not constant, which is your rationale for the inaccuracy of radiometric dating; you have provided no evidence or even a reason why you consider time of death determinations to be inaccurate; you have provided no real link between these two completely different dating methods to explain how they support your arguments; and you have seemingly ignored how your own presuppositions about the age of the earth, based on your religious belief, make it difficult if not impossible for you to credit most fossil dating methods in the first place. Perhaps you should work on your arguments a bit before you post.

First off i am on record saying I don't know how old the earth is and how long life has been on the earth. I am not ignoring different methods are used in trying to determine the time of death of a person. Common sense has to come into play though. If they can't perfect determining the time of death of a person what makes you think they can perfect the dating methods that determine the age of a fossil or a rock ?

Why do I need a link to show that they say a person died between this time and that time,that is not exact nor are dating methods.

If you look back through time the age of the earth has changed,how long life has been on this planet has changed, The age of the universe has changed. But evolutionists knew that according to the theory of evolution that it could not happen in such a short period of time. That is where their presuppositions determine the age of fossils and rocks.

We know it don't take long for fossils and rocks to form and that is a fact.

So faith plays a role in your views as well as mine.

Holy crap! Stop repeating the same ridiculousness, please!

No one has claimed perfection in either radiometric dating or time of death determination. However, the fact that we cannot perfectly determine the instant someone died has nothing to do with fossil dating methods! NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! If we were able to 'perfectly' determine the timing of either type of dating, it would not matter to the other.

How is it common sense to say, "These two methods of determining time are not only completely different in method, but involve extremely different measurements of time. However, because one is not perfect, it must mean the other is not perfect, either. Even though no one has claimed either to be perfect."

If you believe that radioactive decay is not constant, fine. That doesn't mean blaming evolutionists for the discovery of radiation and the discovery of how certain isotopes break down at a steady rate makes sense.

Oh, and you say you don't know the age of the earth....does that mean you could accept it's age at billions of years? Could you accept that life has been around for billions of years? Everything I recall from you would make me believe otherwise.

Here godsquad I got this...

Fuck You.... All theory and possible tiny imperfection is the domain of the lord. You don't know ANYTHING until you have given yourself to GOD!!!!!!!!!!! or Jesus... all of ours lord and savior ............whether you like it or not you fucking creten!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just sayin...

 

[Youwerecreated]

Once again, YOU ARE COMPARING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATING. First, the accuracy of radiometric dating is not a matter of hours, as is the case for trying to determine time of death. Have you ever seen someone claim they can accurately determine the age of a fossil to the hour? No? Then stop trying to make it seem as though that's the case! Second, why do you say time of death determinations can't be exact? By what reasoning do you come to this conclusion? Is it because they aren't accurate to the second, or to the minute? You keep saying time of death determinations are inaccurate but fail to provide any evidence that is the case. As I understand it there are a number of different types of evidence used to determine time of death which are accurate within certain time frames.

As far as your speculation about the changing environment and it's affect on dating, here's an article about experiments done to see if certain environmental changes (specifically to do with the sun) might skew the results :
Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable
This would seem to indicate that scientists involved with dating DO try to take into account the possibility of different environments having an affect on the accuracy of radiometric dating.

So you have provided no evidence and only the vaguest speculation that observed decay rates are not constant, which is your rationale for the inaccuracy of radiometric dating; you have provided no evidence or even a reason why you consider time of death determinations to be inaccurate; you have provided no real link between these two completely different dating methods to explain how they support your arguments; and you have seemingly ignored how your own presuppositions about the age of the earth, based on your religious belief, make it difficult if not impossible for you to credit most fossil dating methods in the first place. Perhaps you should work on your arguments a bit before you post.

First off i am on record saying I don't know how old the earth is and how long life has been on the earth. I am not ignoring different methods are used in trying to determine the time of death of a person. Common sense has to come into play though. If they can't perfect determining the time of death of a person what makes you think they can perfect the dating methods that determine the age of a fossil or a rock ?

Why do I need a link to show that they say a person died between this time and that time,that is not exact nor are dating methods.

If you look back through time the age of the earth has changed,how long life has been on this planet has changed, The age of the universe has changed. But evolutionists knew that according to the theory of evolution that it could not happen in such a short period of time. That is where their presuppositions determine the age of fossils and rocks.

We know it don't take long for fossils and rocks to form and that is a fact.

So faith plays a role in your views as well as mine.

Holy crap! Stop repeating the same ridiculousness, please!

No one has claimed perfection in either radiometric dating or time of death determination. However, the fact that we cannot perfectly determine the instant someone died has nothing to do with fossil dating methods! NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! If we were able to 'perfectly' determine the timing of either type of dating, it would not matter to the other.

How is it common sense to say, "These two methods of determining time are not only completely different in method, but involve extremely different measurements of time. However, because one is not perfect, it must mean the other is not perfect, either. Even though no one has claimed either to be perfect."

If you believe that radioactive decay is not constant, fine. That doesn't mean blaming evolutionists for the discovery of radiation and the discovery of how certain isotopes break down at a steady rate makes sense.

Oh, and you say you don't know the age of the earth....does that mean you could accept it's age at billions of years? Could you accept that life has been around for billions of years? Everything I recall from you would make me believe otherwise.

So why do you put so much faith in the dating methods if you admit they are not accurate ? your theory requires alot of time to have taken place why do you think science dating dating methods keep giving more and more time ? Because they knew as the more they learned that the theory required more and more time how did they get this more time ?

I don't know how long life has existed and old the universe is but I do have the bible giving me a timetable somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 years is what I believe.

I trust in the word of God more then mans opinions. The bible has proven to be trustworthy.

 

[Montrovant]

First off i am on record saying I don't know how old the earth is and how long life has been on the earth. I am not ignoring different methods are used in trying to determine the time of death of a person. Common sense has to come into play though. If they can't perfect determining the time of death of a person what makes you think they can perfect the dating methods that determine the age of a fossil or a rock ?

Why do I need a link to show that they say a person died between this time and that time,that is not exact nor are dating methods.

If you look back through time the age of the earth has changed,how long life has been on this planet has changed, The age of the universe has changed. But evolutionists knew that according to the theory of evolution that it could not happen in such a short period of time. That is where their presuppositions determine the age of fossils and rocks.

We know it don't take long for fossils and rocks to form and that is a fact.

So faith plays a role in your views as well as mine.

Holy crap! Stop repeating the same ridiculousness, please!

No one has claimed perfection in either radiometric dating or time of death determination. However, the fact that we cannot perfectly determine the instant someone died has nothing to do with fossil dating methods! NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! If we were able to 'perfectly' determine the timing of either type of dating, it would not matter to the other.

How is it common sense to say, "These two methods of determining time are not only completely different in method, but involve extremely different measurements of time. However, because one is not perfect, it must mean the other is not perfect, either. Even though no one has claimed either to be perfect."

If you believe that radioactive decay is not constant, fine. That doesn't mean blaming evolutionists for the discovery of radiation and the discovery of how certain isotopes break down at a steady rate makes sense.

Oh, and you say you don't know the age of the earth....does that mean you could accept it's age at billions of years? Could you accept that life has been around for billions of years? Everything I recall from you would make me believe otherwise.

So why do you put so much faith in the dating methods if you admit they are not accurate ? your theory requires alot of time to have taken place why do you think science dating dating methods keep giving more and more time ? Because they knew as the more they learned that the theory required more and more time how did they get this more time ?

I don't know how long life has existed and old the universe is but I do have the bible giving me a timetable somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 years is what I believe.

I trust in the word of God more then mans opinions. The bible has proven to be trustworthy.

Your disingenuousness, misdirection and lies seem to know no bounds.

Go back a few posts and you say you are 'on record' that you don't know the age of the earth. Here you are claiming the earth is between 6-12000 years old. Well, which is it?

You say dating methods keep giving more and more time. Do you have evidence for this? Are you saying radiometric dating methods keep giving more and more time, or are you comparing those methods to something like Kelvin's estimate of the age of the earth? Or are you just making shit up?

Who admitted inaccuracy? All I said was dating methods are not perfect, which is what you seem to need. That doesn't mean they aren't accurate within a certain degree. I just means we can't determine things to the exact instant.

As I said before, your presuppositions prevent you from looking objectively at any fossil dating methods currently employed. If the earth is no older than 12000 years, you cannot believe any dating method that gives an age older than that. You complain that these methods are based on the theory of evolution needing the earth to be that old (while providing absolutely zero evidence that is the case) yet ignore your own belief-based bias.

You should just boil all your silly attempts to disprove science down to a single argument, "My interpretation of the bible is the truth.". It would be a much more honest argument.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Holy crap! Stop repeating the same ridiculousness, please!

No one has claimed perfection in either radiometric dating or time of death determination. However, the fact that we cannot perfectly determine the instant someone died has nothing to do with fossil dating methods! NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! If we were able to 'perfectly' determine the timing of either type of dating, it would not matter to the other.

How is it common sense to say, "These two methods of determining time are not only completely different in method, but involve extremely different measurements of time. However, because one is not perfect, it must mean the other is not perfect, either. Even though no one has claimed either to be perfect."

If you believe that radioactive decay is not constant, fine. That doesn't mean blaming evolutionists for the discovery of radiation and the discovery of how certain isotopes break down at a steady rate makes sense.

Oh, and you say you don't know the age of the earth....does that mean you could accept it's age at billions of years? Could you accept that life has been around for billions of years? Everything I recall from you would make me believe otherwise.

So why do you put so much faith in the dating methods if you admit they are not accurate ? your theory requires alot of time to have taken place why do you think science dating dating methods keep giving more and more time ? Because they knew as the more they learned that the theory required more and more time how did they get this more time ?

I don't know how long life has existed and old the universe is but I do have the bible giving me a timetable somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 years is what I believe.

I trust in the word of God more then mans opinions. The bible has proven to be trustworthy.

Your disingenuousness, misdirection and lies seem to know no bounds.

Go back a few posts and you say you are 'on record' that you don't know the age of the earth. Here you are claiming the earth is between 6-12000 years old. Well, which is it?

You say dating methods keep giving more and more time. Do you have evidence for this? Are you saying radiometric dating methods keep giving more and more time, or are you comparing those methods to something like Kelvin's estimate of the age of the earth? Or are you just making shit up?

Who admitted inaccuracy? All I said was dating methods are not perfect, which is what you seem to need. That doesn't mean they aren't accurate within a certain degree. I just means we can't determine things to the exact instant.

As I said before, your presuppositions prevent you from looking objectively at any fossil dating methods currently employed. If the earth is no older than 12000 years, you cannot believe any dating method that gives an age older than that. You complain that these methods are based on the theory of evolution needing the earth to be that old (while providing absolutely zero evidence that is the case) yet ignore your own belief-based bias.

You should just boil all your silly attempts to disprove science down to a single argument, "My interpretation of the bible is the truth.". It would be a much more honest argument.

Those words are kinda strong don't you think ? did i hit a nerve or something ?

You see the difference between you and I is that I don't have a problem admitting my views are based in faith in the bible.

Don't know which timeframe God was going by his or mans for creation days.

No if you have seen me in these threads I brought many more arguments then just this to the debate, so who is being disingenuous ?

 

[Montrovant]

So why do you put so much faith in the dating methods if you admit they are not accurate ? your theory requires alot of time to have taken place why do you think science dating dating methods keep giving more and more time ? Because they knew as the more they learned that the theory required more and more time how did they get this more time ?

I don't know how long life has existed and old the universe is but I do have the bible giving me a timetable somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 years is what I believe.

I trust in the word of God more then mans opinions. The bible has proven to be trustworthy.

Your disingenuousness, misdirection and lies seem to know no bounds.

Go back a few posts and you say you are 'on record' that you don't know the age of the earth. Here you are claiming the earth is between 6-12000 years old. Well, which is it?

You say dating methods keep giving more and more time. Do you have evidence for this? Are you saying radiometric dating methods keep giving more and more time, or are you comparing those methods to something like Kelvin's estimate of the age of the earth? Or are you just making shit up?

Who admitted inaccuracy? All I said was dating methods are not perfect, which is what you seem to need. That doesn't mean they aren't accurate within a certain degree. I just means we can't determine things to the exact instant.

As I said before, your presuppositions prevent you from looking objectively at any fossil dating methods currently employed. If the earth is no older than 12000 years, you cannot believe any dating method that gives an age older than that. You complain that these methods are based on the theory of evolution needing the earth to be that old (while providing absolutely zero evidence that is the case) yet ignore your own belief-based bias.

You should just boil all your silly attempts to disprove science down to a single argument, "My interpretation of the bible is the truth.". It would be a much more honest argument.

Those words are kinda strong don't you think ? did i hit a nerve or something ?

You see the difference between you and I is that I don't have a problem admitting my views are based in faith in the bible.

Don't know which timeframe God was going by his or mans for creation days.

No if you have seen me in these threads I brought many more arguments then just this to the debate, so who is being disingenuous ?

Almost 4000 posts into this thread, and however many more you've done in other threads, your attempts to disprove various branches of science are getting tiring.

You've used that 'difference between us is I admit my faith' line before. It's just not true. You have, many times, tried to argue that a particular type of scientific study or measurement is wrong, and your arguments are never, "My faith tells me this is wrong.". As I said, that would be more honest. Instead, you try to say those things which go against your faith are not science.

Of course I've seen you in these threads, I've replied to you plenty of times. Yes, you've used more arguments than just the comparison of dating methods to time of death determinations. However, almost all the arguments you have attempted to use have been similar in nature; without evidence or a great deal of rational connection.

Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, while I consider it foolish, is fine. Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, and creating or clinging to any pseudo-scientific explanation for why that contradictory science is wrong, is annoying.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your disingenuousness, misdirection and lies seem to know no bounds.

Go back a few posts and you say you are 'on record' that you don't know the age of the earth. Here you are claiming the earth is between 6-12000 years old. Well, which is it?

You say dating methods keep giving more and more time. Do you have evidence for this? Are you saying radiometric dating methods keep giving more and more time, or are you comparing those methods to something like Kelvin's estimate of the age of the earth? Or are you just making shit up?

Who admitted inaccuracy? All I said was dating methods are not perfect, which is what you seem to need. That doesn't mean they aren't accurate within a certain degree. I just means we can't determine things to the exact instant.

As I said before, your presuppositions prevent you from looking objectively at any fossil dating methods currently employed. If the earth is no older than 12000 years, you cannot believe any dating method that gives an age older than that. You complain that these methods are based on the theory of evolution needing the earth to be that old (while providing absolutely zero evidence that is the case) yet ignore your own belief-based bias.

You should just boil all your silly attempts to disprove science down to a single argument, "My interpretation of the bible is the truth.". It would be a much more honest argument.

Those words are kinda strong don't you think ? did i hit a nerve or something ?

You see the difference between you and I is that I don't have a problem admitting my views are based in faith in the bible.

Don't know which timeframe God was going by his or mans for creation days.

No if you have seen me in these threads I brought many more arguments then just this to the debate, so who is being disingenuous ?

Almost 4000 posts into this thread, and however many more you've done in other threads, your attempts to disprove various branches of science are getting tiring.

You've used that 'difference between us is I admit my faith' line before. It's just not true. You have, many times, tried to argue that a particular type of scientific study or measurement is wrong, and your arguments are never, "My faith tells me this is wrong.". As I said, that would be more honest. Instead, you try to say those things which go against your faith are not science.

Of course I've seen you in these threads, I've replied to you plenty of times. Yes, you've used more arguments than just the comparison of dating methods to time of death determinations. However, almost all the arguments you have attempted to use have been similar in nature; without evidence or a great deal of rational connection.

Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, while I consider it foolish, is fine. Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, and creating or clinging to any pseudo-scientific explanation for why that contradictory science is wrong, is annoying.

Not trying to prove science wrong. Real science supports my views not yours. Real science is not faith based and a lot of what you believe are.

There is no real science that contradicts what I believe. Here let's administer the honesty test again. The bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind is that not supported by what we observe ?

 

[Montrovant]

Those words are kinda strong don't you think ? did i hit a nerve or something ?

You see the difference between you and I is that I don't have a problem admitting my views are based in faith in the bible.

Don't know which timeframe God was going by his or mans for creation days.

No if you have seen me in these threads I brought many more arguments then just this to the debate, so who is being disingenuous ?

Almost 4000 posts into this thread, and however many more you've done in other threads, your attempts to disprove various branches of science are getting tiring.

You've used that 'difference between us is I admit my faith' line before. It's just not true. You have, many times, tried to argue that a particular type of scientific study or measurement is wrong, and your arguments are never, "My faith tells me this is wrong.". As I said, that would be more honest. Instead, you try to say those things which go against your faith are not science.

Of course I've seen you in these threads, I've replied to you plenty of times. Yes, you've used more arguments than just the comparison of dating methods to time of death determinations. However, almost all the arguments you have attempted to use have been similar in nature; without evidence or a great deal of rational connection.

Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, while I consider it foolish, is fine. Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, and creating or clinging to any pseudo-scientific explanation for why that contradictory science is wrong, is annoying.

Not trying to prove science wrong. Real science supports my views not yours. Real science is not faith based and a lot of what you believe are.

There is no real science that contradicts what I believe. Here let's administer the honesty test again. The bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind is that not supported by what we observe ?

Here we go again. 'Real' science supports my views. Not 'I base my views on science', rather, you determine what science is 'real' based on what you already believe. In other words, the science is not 'real' because you don't want it to be, not because of any flaw in data or methodology.

You've asked that question before on multiple occasions, and it's been answered more than once. I'm not going to bother getting into yet another drawn out discussion about your interpretations of biblical scripture. You are, obviously, free to believe whatever you want. Just realize that what you have not done is prove any of the science which goes against your beliefs to be wrong.

 

[daws101]

Those words are kinda strong don't you think ? did i hit a nerve or something ?

You see the difference between you and I is that I don't have a problem admitting my views are based in faith in the bible.

Don't know which timeframe God was going by his or mans for creation days.

No if you have seen me in these threads I brought many more arguments then just this to the debate, so who is being disingenuous ?

Almost 4000 posts into this thread, and however many more you've done in other threads, your attempts to disprove various branches of science are getting tiring.

You've used that 'difference between us is I admit my faith' line before. It's just not true. You have, many times, tried to argue that a particular type of scientific study or measurement is wrong, and your arguments are never, "My faith tells me this is wrong.". As I said, that would be more honest. Instead, you try to say those things which go against your faith are not science.

Of course I've seen you in these threads, I've replied to you plenty of times. Yes, you've used more arguments than just the comparison of dating methods to time of death determinations. However, almost all the arguments you have attempted to use have been similar in nature; without evidence or a great deal of rational connection.

Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, while I consider it foolish, is fine. Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, and creating or clinging to any pseudo-scientific explanation for why that contradictory science is wrong, is annoying.

Not trying to prove science wrong. Real science supports my views not yours. Real science is not faith based and a lot of what you believe are.

There is no real science that contradicts what I believe. Here let's administer the honesty test again. The bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind is that not supported by what we observe ?

yes there is... all REAL SCIENCE contradicts what you believe.
your belief is based on an unprovable false premise .
your belief begins with a PRE conceived conclusion ,that you have no evidence for
real science starts with evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Almost 4000 posts into this thread, and however many more you've done in other threads, your attempts to disprove various branches of science are getting tiring.

You've used that 'difference between us is I admit my faith' line before. It's just not true. You have, many times, tried to argue that a particular type of scientific study or measurement is wrong, and your arguments are never, "My faith tells me this is wrong.". As I said, that would be more honest. Instead, you try to say those things which go against your faith are not science.

Of course I've seen you in these threads, I've replied to you plenty of times. Yes, you've used more arguments than just the comparison of dating methods to time of death determinations. However, almost all the arguments you have attempted to use have been similar in nature; without evidence or a great deal of rational connection.

Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, while I consider it foolish, is fine. Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, and creating or clinging to any pseudo-scientific explanation for why that contradictory science is wrong, is annoying.

Not trying to prove science wrong. Real science supports my views not yours. Real science is not faith based and a lot of what you believe are.

There is no real science that contradicts what I believe. Here let's administer the honesty test again. The bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind is that not supported by what we observe ?

Here we go again. 'Real' science supports my views. Not 'I base my views on science', rather, you determine what science is 'real' based on what you already believe. In other words, the science is not 'real' because you don't want it to be, not because of any flaw in data or methodology.

You've asked that question before on multiple occasions, and it's been answered more than once. I'm not going to bother getting into yet another drawn out discussion about your interpretations of biblical scripture. You are, obviously, free to believe whatever you want. Just realize that what you have not done is prove any of the science which goes against your beliefs to be wrong.

Really ? because there is no prroof how old the universe is nor how long life has existed on this planet.

There is no proof for macro-evolution ,none.

There is proof of adaptations but no proof that adaptations can produce a new family of organisms.

You know my question is right to the point that kinds reproduce their own kind. Science does support my view but it does not support your view that kinds reproduce other kinds,why is it that science does not support your view ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Almost 4000 posts into this thread, and however many more you've done in other threads, your attempts to disprove various branches of science are getting tiring.

You've used that 'difference between us is I admit my faith' line before. It's just not true. You have, many times, tried to argue that a particular type of scientific study or measurement is wrong, and your arguments are never, "My faith tells me this is wrong.". As I said, that would be more honest. Instead, you try to say those things which go against your faith are not science.

Of course I've seen you in these threads, I've replied to you plenty of times. Yes, you've used more arguments than just the comparison of dating methods to time of death determinations. However, almost all the arguments you have attempted to use have been similar in nature; without evidence or a great deal of rational connection.

Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, while I consider it foolish, is fine. Not believing in science that contradicts your faith, and creating or clinging to any pseudo-scientific explanation for why that contradictory science is wrong, is annoying.

Not trying to prove science wrong. Real science supports my views not yours. Real science is not faith based and a lot of what you believe are.

There is no real science that contradicts what I believe. Here let's administer the honesty test again. The bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind is that not supported by what we observe ?

yes there is... all REAL SCIENCE contradicts what you believe.
your belief is based on an unprovable false premise .
your belief begins with a PRE conceived conclusion ,that you have no evidence for
real science starts with evidence.

You are wrong no matter how many times you try to spin out of what you are hit with.

Let's see if you can explain what came first the chicken or the egg ? then explain how it came into existence on it's own.

 

[Montrovant]

Not trying to prove science wrong. Real science supports my views not yours. Real science is not faith based and a lot of what you believe are.

There is no real science that contradicts what I believe. Here let's administer the honesty test again. The bible say's ten times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind is that not supported by what we observe ?

Here we go again. 'Real' science supports my views. Not 'I base my views on science', rather, you determine what science is 'real' based on what you already believe. In other words, the science is not 'real' because you don't want it to be, not because of any flaw in data or methodology.

You've asked that question before on multiple occasions, and it's been answered more than once. I'm not going to bother getting into yet another drawn out discussion about your interpretations of biblical scripture. You are, obviously, free to believe whatever you want. Just realize that what you have not done is prove any of the science which goes against your beliefs to be wrong.

Really ? because there is no prroof how old the universe is nor how long life has existed on this planet.

There is no proof for macro-evolution ,none.

There is proof of adaptations but no proof that adaptations can produce a new family of organisms.

You know my question is right to the point that kinds reproduce their own kind. Science does support my view but it does not support your view that kinds reproduce other kinds,why is it that science does not support your view ?

None of which has anything to do with radiometric dating, or your ridiculous assertion that an inability to determine time of death to the instant somehow equates to a complete refutation of radiometric dating methods.

The age of the universe and the amount of time life has been on the planet are nothing but estimates. I have no problem acknowledging that.

There may not be proof of macro-evolution, the way you seem to mean it, but there is certainly evidence. You don't find it compelling, fine. Your point of view seems to be one of 'if I didn't see it, it didn't happen', though, and that is pretty silly.

Again, 4000 posts into this thread, we don't need to go over the same bs again. You don't believe in evolution. You don't believe that isotopes decay at the same rate when mankind isn't there to watch. You don't believe a tree falling makes a noise when no one is there to hear it. And you apparently are unwilling to accept that any of your disbelief is rooted entirely in your faith, instead claiming the science isn't 'real'.