08 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseThere they go with that 165-million-year-old crap again. For some reason they thinK people will be more impressed with their findings, if they calm it is millions of years old. How stupid. That just makes me less impressed and have little faith in what other things they say.
http://phys.org/news/2013-08-proto-mammal-fossil-evolution-earliest-mammals.html
The Instructor
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsRJHinds.
There they go with that 165-million-year-old crap again. For some reason they thinK people will be more impressed with their findings, if they calm it is millions of years old. How stupid. That just makes me less impressed and have little faith in what other things they say.
The Instructor
Please get this into your head.
THIS IS THE SCIENCE FORUM. And not the spirituality forum.
There is NO scientific doubt what so ever, at all, that the world is billions of years old.
This is an established scientific FACT.
Utterly and completely undisputed.
We ALL know that you and other young earth creationists disagree but that is your
RELIGIOUS view point.
And I will say this again... THIS IS THE SCIENCE FORUM.
Your RELIGIOUS viewpoint is irrelevant and unwelcome here.
If you can't discus scientific issues in scientific terms then don't post here.
EVERYTHING in science is contrary to your religion.
You could (and often do) post your stupid religious objections to every single thread here
derailing and interrupting every discussion of science with your claptrap.
The spirituality forum was, as you well know, created specifically to stop every thread on
every other forum becoming about religion.
So will you please just shut up on the science forums.
You are incapable of discussing science so don't say anything at all.
Take it to spirituality.
Get out of science.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat is a lie. There is no scientific fact proving any of those ages. It is all calculations based on unproven assumptions. In fact, different dating methods have proven to get drastically different ages for the rocks, which I have already point out. Even different parts of the same rock have gotten different dates using the same dating method.
RJHinds.
Please get this into your head.
THIS IS THE SCIENCE FORUM. And not the spirituality forum.
There is NO scientific doubt what so ever, at all, that the world is billions of years old.
This is an established scientific FACT.
Utterly and completely undisputed.
We ALL know that you and other young earth creationists disagree bu sing science so don't say anything at all.
Take it to spirituality.
Get out of science.
The Instructor
08 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsRJ this is tedious. The dating methods are all calibrated carefully. Basically the only assumption they make is that an all-powerful entity didn't leave a false trail. Now if that did happen then the dates are wrong, but science proceeds under the assumption that didn't happen. The basic assumption in science is that if there is no evidence for a thing's existence then proceeding as if it doesn't won't create errors.
That is a lie. There is no scientific fact proving any of those ages. It is all calculations based on unproven assumptions. In fact, different dating methods have proven to get drastically different ages for the rocks, which I have already point out.
The Instructor
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAnother lie. I did not mention such an assumption. I am talking about assumptions like assuming the ratio of elements in the rock are known in the beginning and that the rock can not obtain or lose any element by other methods like absorption or water run off over periods of time. There is a list of assumptions that are made in dating rocks. The dating of lava rocks from recent volcanic eruptions have been dated and they still give very old and inconsistent dates by the different dating methods.
RJ this is tedious. The dating methods are all calibrated carefully. Basically the only assumption they make is that an all-powerful entity didn't leave a false trail. Now if that did happen then the dates are wrong, but science proceeds under the assumption that didn't happen. The basic assumption in science is that if there is no evidence for a thing's existence then proceeding as if it doesn't won't create errors.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't care if you think we are lying, believe whatever the hell you want.
Another lie. I did not mention such an assumption. I am talking about assumptions like assuming the ratio of elements in the rock are known in the beginning and that the rock can not obtain any element by other methods like absorption over long periods of time. There is a list of assumptions that are made in dating rocks. The dating of lava rocks from rec ...[text shortened]... ey still give very old and inconsistent dates by the different dating methods.
The Instructor
Just do it some-place else.
You are not, and have never been, actually interested in discussing the science
behind dating (or anything else) in an honest or reasonable fashion.
WE ALL KNOW your stupid and ignorant beliefs.
We can take it as read that you disagree with everything we do or say.
So you do not have to say it.
Just shut up, and leave.
You are never ever going to change our minds.
08 Aug 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI know some of you have closed minds, but there might be one or two that come to this forum with open minds.
I don't care if you think we are lying, believe whatever the hell you want.
Just do it some-place else.
You are not, and have never been, actually interested in discussing the science
behind dating (or anything else) in an honest or reasonable fashion.
WE ALL KNOW your stupid and ignorant beliefs.
We can take it as read that you disagree wi ...[text shortened]... ot have to say it.
Just shut up, and leave.
You are never ever going to change our minds.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsNo. YOU do not get to accuse ANYONE of being closed minded.
I know some of you have closed minds, but there might be one or two that come to this forum with open minds.
The Instructor
And nobody is stopping you spouting your religious beliefs.
There is an entire forum on this site dedicated to talking about religion and philosophy.
It's not this one.
Leave here, and go there.
08 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAll this young Earther crap is interfering with anyone here actually talking about the real implications of this amazing discovery.
I know some of you have closed minds, but there might be one or two that come to this forum with open minds.
The Instructor
Let me be clear about one thing: We ALL know you have zero interest in actual science. All you care about is subverting the heroic efforts of hundreds of years of scientists to your outdated dogma.
So do your dogma in the spiritual forum where you have listeners who give a shyte about your delusional views.