Faith:
Of course all the FIELDS of geology accept the OE time scale. Nothing new there.
And nothing invalidated there, just because Faith doesn't find it new.
It may or may not be window dressing as far as the actual work of science goes, but even in finding oil the actual use that is made of the OE time factor is very little, 2%, 5% I don't know
You have an interesting habit, Faith, of stating something in denial as if it were fact, then admitting at once that you don't know what you are talking about.
In the Oetzi thread you stated your refusal to accept carbon dating, then--right after this remarkable assertion that you know something about carbon dating all the scientists in the world do not--you admitted you didn't know enough about the subject to discuss it.
Here you say the OE time factor occupies some measurable amount of insignificance in the oil industry, then say 'I don't know.'
Why should scientists credit anything you put forward when you admit you do not know enough to support your own statements?
For that matter, why should you?
It doesn't impress me that people are convinced of OE theory. So what else is new? It's to be expected.
And why is it 'to be expected' that a field occupied by 95% Christians would be convinced of OE theory by now, Faith?
My position is that the day-to-day science doesn't NEED the OE assumptions, even if they are assumed, as of course they are. You can even think you are using them when you don't really need them. That's my position.
And why should scientists be impressed with the position of a person who admits she does not know what she is talking about?
Just so you know. I'm not really interested in debating this stuff again, I just want to clarify what I meant. If you intend to address me with some kind of evidence, please keep it brief and nontechnical.
So someone who doesn't know what she is talking about has a chance to understand what scientists are discovering?
_
Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.
Archer
All species are transitional.
™ Version 4.2
