Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uranium Dating
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 153 (573503)
08-11-2010 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 5:29 PM


if i had a dime for every one of these comments i read i could retire.
Maybe you get these comments because you deserve them. Maybe you get them because people who are actually experts in these fields notice that your posts are packed with errors even freshmen students don't make. Is it really so surprising that people accuse you of not knowing things when you make it obvious that you don't know them?
others have millions of years and i will say this for most of these half-lifes people do not live long enough to see if they are correct.
You don't have to observe the entire duration of the half-life to verify the half-life. You just have to use a geiger counter to count the particle emissions over a more observable period of time. If you know how many particles are decaying over a minute, for instance, you can determine how long it will take for half of them to have decayed. It's a simple matter of logarithms.
as i said there is no central governor for the dating systems
Right, so your claim that they're all getting the same false dates from a single fabricated source is false.
if they so happen to agree on one international statement that does not mean the statement is true or that their method is without error.
But of course that's exactly what it means. If all nations, independent of each other, develop laws against murder, that's evidence that murder is wrong, since the law approximates what is right and wrong.
you can read anything you want into old bones but nothing in the fossils indicates that there was a transformation in progress.
It's the pattern of fossils that indicates the transformation. One footprint won't tell you anything about where someone has been or where they were going. There's nothing in a single footprint that can tell you that.
It's the trail of footprints, the pattern, leading from the broken window to the neighbor's front door that tells you that whoever broke into your house last night lives next door. Every fossil is a footprint in a trail that leads from the Last Universal Common Ancestor to every living thing on Earth today.
and they dfound what they were looking for whether it really is one or not.
If it's not what they were looking for, how would they have known where to look for it?
i have already presented the nursery evidence
What "nursery evidence" did you present? You just said we should "go to a nursery." Can you be more specific? Should we look for something in particular? If all the evidence for creation is in nurseries then why are the people who run nurseries so frequently evolutionists?
well you totally missed the point and start talking about absurd things i never said
You said there was
quote:
no observation of it being produced by a lesser form and no observation of it changing into a superior form.
Did you write those words, or didn't you? They appear in your post. How did they get there if you didn't write them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 5:29 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 47 of 153 (573504)
08-11-2010 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 5:29 PM


Please, just explain one thing to me.
Why is it that virtually the entire scientific establishment, many of whom worship the same god that you do, accepts the accuracy of everything that you are arguing against?
Edited by subbie, : Just because

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 5:29 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 48 of 153 (573506)
08-11-2010 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 5:29 PM


Before you go too far astray, perhaps you should read Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective.
Since this topic is on Uranium (radiometric) dating it might help if you knew what the subject was actually about.
Once you fully understand that material I can point out additional sources that should help you better understand the subject.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 5:29 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 153 (573513)
08-11-2010 6:50 PM


Close quote boxes with /qs, and preferably divide the post into separate replies to each of the posts you're replying to.
Could you please sort this mess out, archaeologist?
Close quote boxes with /qs, and preferably divide the post into separate replies to each of the posts you're replying to.
maybe alli was missing was the backwards slash. i asked a specific yes or no question but no one seems to be able to give a straight answer.
i am tryng to learn to do it correctly
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 153 (573515)
08-11-2010 7:10 PM


Maybe you get these comments because you deserve them. Maybe you get them because people who are actually experts in these fields notice that your posts are packed with errors even freshmen students don't make. Is it really so surprising that people accuse you of not knowing things when you make it obvious that you don't know them?
no i get them because people like you cannot accept the fact that others will disagree with them and their beliefs. the rest is just pure ignorance and aninsult which will be ignored.
You don't have to observe the entire duration of the half-life to verify the half-life
actually you do or it is all hearsay, assumption or conjecture.
so your claim that they're all getting the same false dates from a single fabricated source is false.
i am saying it is a very real possibility and a factual one. one cannot trust the human dating systems for they are a product of a fallible mind dealing with assumptions and incomplete data.
But of course that's exactly what it means
and you would be wrong. all it means is that those signing nations agreed to the statement not that it was or is true. orthey may think it is true when it is not.
It's the pattern of fossils that indicates the transformation.
the pattern still is not proof nor evidence but a result of eisogetic meanderings on the part of the scientists.
It's the trail of footprints, the pattern
footprints is a bad anaolgy because we can see them take place in front of our eyes when someone walks and know that they are indicating something whereas different items on different fossils are NOT observed and no real pattern is known. it is all conjecture that the claim is the actual pattern and there is no observation of the changes that confirms that conjecture.
alkl you are looking at are fossils who were preserved inthat condition for any numberof reasons and scientists assume it is evolution when it is not.
If it's not what they were looking for, how would they have known where to look for it?
please, it was a lucky guess not a prediction.
Did you write those words, or didn't you? They appear in your post. How did they get there if you didn't write them
yet you cannot prove it was me who actually wrote them. sure you may trace the computer connection but you still cannot prove that it was actually me who typed those words. you can assume but you will never really know now will you.
but with this example you require a confession; guess what, you will not get a confessionout of the evolutionary process, it is all assumption on your part based upon the rejection of alternatives to the theory of evolution.
Why is it that virtually the entire scientific establishment, many of whom worship the same god that you do, accepts the accuracy of everything that you are arguing against?
if science disagrees with the Bible then the science is wrong and all people have free choice what they want to believe. if they want to disobey God and follow science then they are wrong.
the truth does not require the majority to accept it to be the truth. the truth is the truth and it is up to all to either accept or reject it. majority rule is not part of God's kingdom.
jar is ignored as he assumes things he knows nothing about.

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 08-11-2010 7:15 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 52 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 7:16 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2010 7:32 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 08-11-2010 8:00 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 55 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-12-2010 12:47 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 64 by Coragyps, posted 08-12-2010 9:59 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 51 of 153 (573516)
08-11-2010 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 7:10 PM


Better ignore me too.
You are the exact opposite of a scientist, and naming yourself "archaeologist" is an insult to tens of thousands of hard-working archaeologists around the world.
Note tag line below.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 7:10 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 52 of 153 (573517)
08-11-2010 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 7:10 PM


if science disagrees with the Bible then the science is wrong and all people have free choice what they want to believe. if they want to disobey God and follow science then they are wrong.
Then you need to stop posting in our science forums.
Seriously.
The science forums here are evidence based. If you are only interested in debating the accuracy of the bible, please stick to the religious forums here.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 7:10 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 153 (573526)
08-11-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 7:10 PM


no i get them because people like you cannot accept the fact that others will disagree with them and their beliefs.
No, you get them because you say things about science that are false. Like, you say that you can't determine the half-life of an isotope without observing the entire half-life. But, that's stupid.
actually you do or it is all hearsay
"Hearsay"? If you observed it yourself who would it be "hearsay" from? And what, in your mind, is so special about the half-life and not, say, the quarter-life? Or the eighth-life? Or the millionth-life? You seem to think that the millionth-life wouldn't tell you anything about the half-life, but you take it for granted that the half-life tells you something about the other half. Why would that be true?
i am saying it is a very real possibility and a factual one.
You've just said that it's not a possibility:
quote:
as i said there is no central governor for the dating systems and no ultimate time piece to synchronize their works.
Did you write those words or didn't you?
one cannot trust the human dating systems
We don't date fossils by humans, we date them by physical evidence of their date.
orthey may think it is true when it is not.
But that's exactly it - when degrees of freedom are so wide, when everybody arrives at the same improbable consensus, that's an indication that they didn't get there by chance alone but because something is significant and real. Bayes' Theorem, remember. Are you saying Bayes' Theorem is wrong? It's been mathematically proven.
the pattern still is not proof nor evidence
In a court of law it would certainly be evidence, forensic evidence. People have been convicted on the basis of a pattern of footprints connecting them to a crime.
footprints is a bad anaolgy because we can see them take place in front of our eyes when someone walks and know that they are indicating something whereas different items on different fossils are NOT observed and no real pattern is known.
That is false. The features of fossils can be easily observed by people who observe the fossils. It's not like they disappear.
And frequently no, you didn't see those footprints formed. You may be observing them hours or days after they were made. Footprints, like fossils, are a physical record of something that happened in the past, and it's on the basis of physical records of the past that we determine what happened in the past.
It's the basis of forensic science - it's the basis of all science. Science can only study the past - the future is not known to anyone (except your God, I suppose, but he's not telling) and the present is the past as soon as it happens.
please, it was a lucky guess not a prediction.
A lucky guess? They just happened to guess Nunavut, Canada and there it was? Does that make sense to you? The land surface area of the Earth is 50 million square kilometers. The three Tiktaalik fossils that exist are about the size of a laptop computer.
That's a very small needle in a very large haystack. And you expect us to believe they just made a lucky guess? That's like guessing the winning lottery numbers every single time, every day, for one hundred years.
yet you cannot prove it was me who actually wrote them.
Did you write them, or didn't you? It's a simple question, why argue about it? Don't be immature. Don't write things unless you mean them. If we can't even respond to your arguments because you're going to claim you didn't write them, how can we have a discussion?
Is that honest behavior? What does your Bible say about lying?
if science disagrees with the Bible then the science is wrong
Or the Bible is wrong, which is what reasonable people conclude. Science, after all, gets results, and the Bible never has. Nobody used the Bible to build the computer you're on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 7:10 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 54 of 153 (573536)
08-11-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 7:10 PM


archaeologist writes:
yet you cannot prove it was me who actually wrote them. sure you may trace the computer connection but you still cannot prove that it was actually me who typed those words. you can assume but you will never really know now will you.
The goal of EvC Forum is to provide a venue for constructive discussion between creationists and evolutionists. Please help the forum achieve this goal. Thanks.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 7:10 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 55 of 153 (573575)
08-12-2010 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 7:10 PM


Hello Archeologist,
it is all hearsay, assumption or conjecture.
Here is some more evidence based on physics that may be easier to grasp than logarithmic examples. According to the Bible the sun was created after the earth. It takes light about 8 minutes 20 seconds to reach the earth from the surface of the sun. But that light leaving the surface of the sun did not originate there. It is the result of nuclear fusion in the interior of the sun. That light is absorbed and re-emitted as it moves in a "random walk" and eventually reaches the surface of the sun. Most of this light takes 10,000 years on the low end and 170,000 years on the high end to do this. So on day one of the earth "6,000 years ago" the light striking the earth was already at least 10,000 years older even though the sun was created after the earth..
Oh.. and no one's your enemy here..
The core is the only location in the Sun that produces an appreciable amount of heat through fusion; inside 24% of the Sun's radius, 99% of the power has been generated, and by 30% of the radius, fusion has stopped nearly entirely. The rest of the star is heated by energy that is transferred outward from the core and the layers just outside. The energy produced by fusion in the core must then travel through many successive layers to the solar photosphere before it escapes into space as sunlight or kinetic energy of particles.
Source:
Sun - Wikipedia
The gamma rays (high-energy photons) released in fusion reactions are absorbed in only a few millimeters of solar plasma and then re-emitted again in random direction (and at slightly lower energy)so it takes a long time for radiation to reach the Sun's surface. Estimates of the "photon travel time" range between 10,000 and 170,000 years.
Source:
NASA - Sun-Earth Day - Technology Through Time - #50 Ancient Sunlight
Understanding nuclear fission, half lives, etc requires at least calculus math level. I don't know if you are that far along yet in your schooling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 7:10 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 153 (573591)
08-12-2010 5:11 AM


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
let me fix that for you: "scientific belief does not constitute religious evidence nor does it convey religious knowledge.
it is a two way street. unfortunately there are many creationists who do not educate themselves and cannot handle discussions on these type of forums but you need to remember that christians are not popped out of the womb with their faith and beliefs intact. we all have gone through what you go through and we have made a decision just like you have.
unlike you, our decision was for the truth not science and we are allowed to make that decision because free choice is a God given right nor a scientifically mandated one. you have freely chosen to accept evolutionary thinking.
so there is the common ground, just becaus eyou do not like my choice doesn't mean you are allowed to treat me like i am not human.
you know as well as i that science is too limited of a research field and is too subjective to be any standard at all. which is why you all have developed peer review, which is subjective as well.
if you want to do the following;
The goal of EvC Forum is to provide a venue for constructive discussion between creationists and evolutionists. Please help the forum achieve this goal. Thanks.
then you must keep in mind that 1. christians are not allowed to follow secularists or their ways, which means discussion with them will not be on your playing field; 2. christians follow God and their thinking will be based on the Bible which means you cannot disallow their resources for that would be a double standard and unfair.; 3. if you want your scientific papers, conclusions observations respected then you must respect the christian equivelant.
if you cannot be honest, along with doing those 3 things, among other discrepancies that arise in this discussions, then you will never fulfill what the powers that be of EvC desire.
discussion is not a one way street nor is it done on an uneven playing field. it is done properly without personal attacks, insults, et al and you can leave your generalities at the door and provide specifics.
According to the Bible the sun was created after the earth. It takes light about 8 minutes 20 seconds to reach the earth from the surface of the sun. But that light leaving the surface of the sun did not originate there. It is the result of nuclear fusion in the interior of the sun. That light is absorbed and re-emitted as it moves in a "random walk" and eventually reaches the surface of the sun. Most of this light takes 10,000 years on the low end and 170,000 years on the high end to do this. So on day one of the earth "6,000 years ago" the light striking the earth was already at least 10,000 years older even though the sun was created after the earth..
yes but you leave out one important fact, andlet me use an example of a table to illustrate my point. a carpenter builds a table out of 250 year old wood, and puts it into service by saying it is brand new. someone comes along and dates the table and sees that the wood is 250 years old and then complains to the carpenter that the table is not new but 250 years old.
do you see my point yet? when someone creates something they do not start from scratch, it is made and primed to work as designed from the get go even though later analysis doubts it.
Understanding nuclear fission, half lives, etc requires at least calculus math level. I don't know if you are that far along yet in your schooling.
you would be amazed at what i can understand. if you have links to libby's papers i would love to read them-just on the decline rate of the isotopes. also you have no idea what my schooling is or how high my intellect goes. as it dstands i have to simplify my writings so you all can grasp what i am trying to communicate to you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Admin, posted 08-12-2010 5:29 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 59 by Meldinoor, posted 08-12-2010 6:06 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 60 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-12-2010 6:06 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2010 6:28 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 57 of 153 (573593)
08-12-2010 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 5:11 AM


archaeologist writes:
then you must keep in mind that 1. christians are not allowed to follow secularists or their ways, which means discussion with them will not be on your playing field; 2. christians follow God and their thinking will be based on the Bible which means you cannot disallow their resources for that would be a double standard and unfair.; 3. if you want your scientific papers, conclusions observations respected then you must respect the christian equivelant.
EvC Forum already has a set of Forum Guidelines that you agreed to follow when you joined. They are neutral with respect to one's position in the creation/evolution debate, and we have a team of moderators who enforce them. Members are nor permitted to impose or enforce their own personal set of guidelines.
If you find EvC's Forum Guidelines acceptable then welcome aboard!
Please no replies to this message in this thread. Problems and issues with discussion should be taken to Report discussion problems here: No.2.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:11 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 153 (573596)
08-12-2010 5:49 AM


i and we are getting to far afield in this topic and i will stop going off track as i want to see a link to libby's papers discussing the decline rates in his dating system.
i will remain against all dating sytems because they are too fallible to be reliable. notone of you have posted in a scientifc, objective manner but have responded emotionally like someone is trying to hurt your baby but i am not.
don't give me statistics because they can be manipulated, limbaugh illustrated that too well years ago. keep in mind that science may only be looking at part of the picture in order to hear what it wants to hear.
in other words, they look at only one portion of the equation, the length of time it takes for an object to reach point a from b and do not examine the set up factor.

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 3:30 PM archaeologist has replied
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2010 3:45 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 59 of 153 (573598)
08-12-2010 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 5:11 AM


Hello Archaeologist, and welcome to EvC forum.
So far, your arguments seem to revolve around man's imperfect knowledge, and how science can not "prove" everything. For instance, earlier in the thread you said:
archaeologist writes:
which is why you are not supposed to follow science, it cannot give the truth when you need it. it also isn't fair or just. you see that is what mkaes God and the ible so much better
But isn't this a false dichotomy? Can one not study science and follow God as well? You yourself claim to have scientific degrees, so I assume you agree with me. Certainly, if one believes that God authored the universe one would expect the empirical evidence not to be misleading, but to reveal exactly how God went about creation. If the evidence strongly suggests that the Earth is old, and the Bible appears to contradict it, isn't a true Christian going to trust the evidence that God put in the ground to not be misleading? Is it not far more likely that the relevant texts of the Bible have been misinterpreted, than that creation has been engineered to appear as it is not?
Could not a God-fearing scientist find truth through empirical study?
Now, back on topic:
Archaeologist writes:
being independent does not guarantee correctness nor support for other dating systems for each have their own vulnerabilities which come into play often
But the individual short-comings of different dating methods are not the point! The point is that they all agree, despite the different approaches the methods take. Carbon-dating agrees with dendrochronology for instance, yet the two methods of dating have nothing in common!
Let's try a different analogy: Say you're a detective attempting to solve a murder mystery. You have 10 independent witnesses claiming they saw the Butler did it. You find fingerprints on the crime scene implicating the Butler. You find DNA evidence implicating the Butler. You find a note implicating the Butler. Bloodstains on the Butler's fingers even turn out to be from the victim.
So obviously, beyond reasonable doubt, the Butler did it.
Now each of these pieces of evidence, by itself, may have short-comings. For example, the witnesses may have been threatened by the real killer, or they could all somehow be mistaken. The fingerprints may have been left on the crime scene at some other time. The DNA may have been contaminated somehow. Perhaps the note was forged.
But the agreement between all the entirely separate lines of evidence point toward the Butler, giving us near certainty of the killer's identity. It is the same thing with dating methods. Although different dating methods may have different levels of uncertainty, one would not expect all of them to point toward a specific age if they were all wrong.
I'll try to add more to this discussion later, but I'm out of time now. But before I go I'll just add that I too am a Christian. I too seek the truth about God and our origins, and I'd be happy to accept a recent creation if only the physical evidence supported it. Unfortunately, despite having read a lot of creationist literature, I have yet to find that evidence. I do not accept the scientific account of Earth's origins out of a desire to downplay the Bible, but because that's what I think the study of God's creation indicates.
Anyway, God bless.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:11 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 60 of 153 (573599)
08-12-2010 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 5:11 AM


unfortunately there are many creationists who do not educate themselves and cannot handle discussions on these type of forums
unlike you, our decision was for the truth not science
Google "false dichotomy"
you know as well as i that science is too limited of a research field and is too subjective to be any standard at all
How many religions based on the Bible are there?
If a particular way of interpreting the Bible conflicts with known facts I can know that that interpretation of the Bible must necessarily be false..
do you see my point yet?
So you are saying that creation is not ex-nihilo but re-organization of existing material, fine. But how does that explain the problem of light taking between 10,000 to 170,000 years to get from the center of the sun to the surface? Was the sun created approximately at the time the earth was created or not? Whether it was created from pre-existing matter or not is irrelevent to my point.
you have no idea what my schooling is
hs or beginning freshman at best..
"archeologist" chosen to give weight to your POV by appeal to authority..
our decision was for the truth not science
unfortunately your education stops there..
Apologies for wandering from Uranium dating. Back to that now..
If the table was created from old wood what problem do you have with Uranium dating?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:11 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:16 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024