Summations Only

Hi candle2You say you are not SDA but your statements mimic theirs. If you will not say which is your church, can you tell us what you accept as the age of the Earth?

You make a lot of derogatory accusations against scientists, but have never shown a single shred of supporting evidence.These threads refute you erroneous accusations and explain how all the dating systems work and how they are calibrated. If you want the truth about how science actually works and why scientist trust assumptions that have been tested thousands of times the answers are readily available right here in these threads at EvC. The first 2 were compiled by RAZD a long time member here. And the third was started by Coyote, an archaeologist who dated thousands of samples.When thousands of other scientist may be relying on your data, cheating and fraud will be exposed, and would ruin a career. The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1)The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 2)Assumptions involved in scientific dating

Whereas all creationists rely on from other creationists' "work" is that it is sensationalist and sounds convincing. Cheating and fraud will never endanger any creationist's career, mainly because sensationalist claims are created through cheating and fraud.I already pointed him to my draft web page which examines the major differences between scientists and creationists: Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists. There I break down step-by-step the differences between how scientists do things in contrast to how creationists do things.Since it presents that information in a two-column table, translating it to would be bothersome.

Would it be fair to say you have an unhealthy obsession with creationism?

So when the angel Gabriel greeted Mary with "Hail" (Luke 1:28), he was worshipping Mary?One of the Catholic titles for Mary - Mother of God - comes from Luke 1:43, when her cousin Elizabeth calls her "the mother of my Lord".
Does this mean Elizabeth worshipped Mary?

You're the one suffering from the disease. It's already ate your brain out.And, no, Altarboy, the meat-crackers won't help. They're part of the cause. Lose the meat-cracker and blood fests and you may recover.

I don't know. I've never met the guy.But when you pray: Then yes you are worshiping.

Pollux, there are a number of differences between my
beliefs and those of the SDA.I do not know how old the earth is, neither does anyone
else.Satan sat on the throne of earth before the week long
renewal in Genesis.How long Satan was here before he rebelled? The Bible
is silent about this.I am not trying to bring members into the Church that I
am a member off.

Dwise 1, I do read articles from both sides. A well
rounded individual will do this.You can lay out articles day after day; month after
months; and, year after year, but dating methods rely on
assumptions. And, assuming something is not science;
it is guesswork.It is impossible to determine what the atmosphere was
like 5000 years ago.It is impossible to determine what the atmosphere was
like prior to the global flood.Do you have the slightest idea how much carbon was
removed from the atmosphere and buried during and
after the flood?I am not the one with the blinders on here, Dwise 1.
You are.

Who cares about amgels. When HUMANS pray, "Hail Mary," they're worshipping Mary. Here it is again:

quote:

---

Hail Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

---

Notice the BIG part. Calling her "Holy" is worship. Calling her the "Mother of God" is worship. How could it not be?Even your fellow-Catholic frllow-idiot Porkncheese agrees that it is worship. Message 643 To Elizabeth, "my Lord" was not God, it was Jesus. The trinitarian heresy was invented later. And "a" lord is not the same as "the" Lord.

Until you learn what assumptions are, your objection is worthless. And if you ever DO learn what assumptions are, you'll drop the silly objection.Yes, we do assume that radioactive decay rates are constant - and the fact that they ARE constant has been VERY thoroughly confirmed. Scientists have been unable to find any conditions or processes that can change decay rates.So, an "asumption" in science is a fact that has already been confirmed by other work. That would appear to be a lie, since you're still espousing the totally-refuted creationist nonsense about radiometric dating.(Even the creationist RATE group had to concede that creationist objections to radiometric dating are groundless.)

Every time you take a step while walking, you assume that your foot won't fall through the ground. That's an assumption. All of life is full of assumptions. Even mathematics depends on assumptions (which we call axioms).You cannot get away from depending on assumptions. The assumptions that science makes are well tested.

Nwr, the wrong assumption can lead to wrong conclusions.The look of quicksand can be quite deceptive. A foot
stepping into quicksand can become entangled.Or a foot stepping on a rattlesnake under a pile of leaves
can cost a person his life.I do not have an issue with someone stating that they
believe in evolution, or that they have confidence in
dating methods.Just don't try to pass it off as being fact. And don't say
that those who do not believe in these issues do not
support science.

We don't pass anything off as fact. We have the experiments and the data that show those facts precisely. We know, even if you don't, how and why the measurement works. And, yes, those who do not accept this science do so for religious reasons and do not support science. You are decidedly anti-science.

Agreed. However, the assumptions behind radio carbon dating have been thoroughly tested. We understand that you don't like them because they thoroughly refute your YEC beliefs. But your YEC beliefs are only an assumptioin.