Posted on 07/17/2009 9:28:19 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
*Are you willing to bet your soul on radiometric dating?*
That is a scare tactic. You are trying to scare people with the threat of punishment in hell if they have a different opinion than yours.
As a debate tactic it is a very cheap one.
Are you telling me that it is wrong to study the facts? That it is wrong to purchase and read books on issues?
That it is wrong to question?
Science does that everyday.
Most of the Cretins wouldn’t recognize science if it bit them on the a##.
*When science tells me a rock that is known to be 200 years old from a volcanic eruption is 4.5 million years old according to radiometric dating*
It isn’t like their is an energy to matter convert making new rock under the volcano. You seam to be expecting that the molten rock gets its age reset the moment it breaches the surface when that isn’t the case.
Oh, and the IDers would allow evidence that doesn’t fit their Theory (ie ToC) to be trumpeted?
NOT.
It’s not cheap. It’s fact.
Radiometric, along with carbon dating is flawed.
The truth is we have no reliable way of looking at matter and telling it’s exact age.
It isn’t a fact that using radiometric dating will doom your soul to hell.
You didn’t say that radiometric dating was simply wrong, you came out and strongly implied that using it would send you straight to hell.
You seem to have missed the point.
Radiometric dating estimated it to be 4.5 million years old, when in fact it was 200. This is the ‘most reliable’ way of estimating age we have.
That’s not what I implied.
I implied that it is flawed and why would someone rely on an assumption, at best.
Well, in a manner of speaking, maybe he/she was speaking the Truth.
How so you ask?
OK, let’s say something is discovered, and carbon dating or radiometric dating accurately proves that the IDer’s theories are nothing but hooey, can you imagine the ear shattering whineing and moaning....?
That, my Friend, would be Hell!
Therefore, in using radiometric dating or carbon dating would, indirectly, send you straight to Hell.
I prefer to think of them as moths to a flame :o)
And there was no mention of ice cream in the article. QQ
I think you should forward it to them anyway, with a link to the original exchange!
From the article:
‘‘If the dinosaur belongs to the same era of the strata [early Cretaceous], the tyrannosaurus could have started to grow larger much earlier than previously thought.’’It seems they are taking the proper scientific action in considering the alteration of previous conclusions based on new evidence. This is how science works to better describe the world, or we'd still be thinking the Earth is flat.
Religious dogma doesn’t allow for change, no matter what the evidence says.
Ask Galileo.
Nice try... no soup for you.
Well then allow me to extrapolate a little more with this idea. The earth is 4.5 billion years old according to radio isotope dating - right? But the rocks on the earth vary from millions, to hundreds of millions to a much as 3.5 billion - right? And these differently aged rocks all combined through accretion to make the earth - right?
Wait, could there possibly be something wrong with these theories?!?!?
Ask science. Scientists used to believe the earth was flat.
The true dogma is with some whose minds are not ‘truly’ open to all.
My statement had nothing to do with age or chronology. The conundrum is presented is why would God create and then eliminate a significant number of species outside of the framework of theistic evolution?
That’s the best you can come up with? Risible.
Well? Got a factual response to post #26? No. Didn’t think so.
*Wait, could there possibly be something wrong with these theories?!?!?*
There is something possibly wrong with every theory.
Your “truth” is wrong. Multiphase radiometric dating is very accurate. You however are flawed.
It is far more than you deserve.
And when science proved the earth was round, and not terracentric, the “faith” refused to accept it for 500 years. Seems your “open mind” got filled with a great deal of crap.
When will these dinosaurs learn to die in the right time period? They are behaving just like a bunch of teenager instead of the older object they seem to be.
Some things we do not know for certain. In fact, science estimates mankind has less than 1% of all knowledge.
Dinosaurs could’ve destroyed themselves. How and why they became extinct is really irrelevant to the repetitive nature of man’s problems today. All will be known one day.
When you say “faith”, you are referring to the catholic church, correct ?
Wow! Hate is not necessary. Let’s keep this civil. Can you do that ?
“Radiometric dating is accurate”
I would suggest you do more reading on that issue. Their 3 main assumptions are not reliable.
Some theories:
Smoking
Driving SUVs
High fructose corn syrup
Not exactly. I do believe that what is claimed for evolution is actually devolution. And the study of DNA backs this up. Micro-evolution represents a loss of information - not a gain. Macro-evolution is a fairy tale of epic proportions!
If you can’t correctly frame the concept of “hate” in your mind and articulate it, you most certainly can’t get your head around evolution, or any science for that matter.
Have you noticed how things left to themselves tend to go to the lowest common denominator and at a high rate of speed??
...And you seem unable to quote someone accurately. Such a shame.
I have studied it extensively.
You just cannot see that you insult people to cover up your lack of obvious study in these matters. This will be my last post to you on this issue since you cannot be civil.
Good day.
The screeching will prevail because revealing information like this is like pouring sulphuric acid on the foundations of evolution. The harpies here, are placed here for the express purpose of deflecting the truth.
“Another one bites the dust”
Next stop... Coast To Coast AM.
That’s called entropy, which is another argument against “self organizing systems” like evolution.
It’s pretty clear that T. Rex scientists were in possession of the secret of time travel.
You do understand that without evolution,
there has to be a Creator,
and logically there will be an objective standard of judgement from that Creator,
and this is somewhere where many fear to go.
So you understand why these conversations get nasty in a hurry.
I understand. But it is truly sad that so many are indoctrinated with theories and assumptions and believed as fact. If Darwin could speak now, what would he say? ;)
Darwin had a kind of messed up life. Lost some family, a daughter I think, and had a real chip on his shoulder about God because of it.
He'd probably be justifying his theories just as strongly as you see other atheists today.
Since there is no evidence that it is anything but a T-Rex, this headline is wishful rationalization, and nothing more.
There goes all that peer review out the winder.
“Museum officials in Japan say fossilized teeth from an ancestor of the tyrannosaurus have been found in the Hyogo Prefecture.”
This illustrates the irrational credulity of the evo camp.
Facts mean nothing to them if they don’t support their illogical assumptions, so they ‘adjust’ the facts by inserting the word “ancestor” to hide the fact that it was a T-Rex in every way, except where it was found.
I'm not necessarily doubting you, but your statement leaves me with two questions;
1) Can you cite your source?
2) Is this the same science you discount with respect to evolution?
I was referring to the post also not just everything else like life, the economy , mankind and the environment. How is that for covering the problem as a whole and yet individually as a whole??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.