Posted on 07/30/2009 10:42:38 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods
--snip--
This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
We have such an "owner's manual"; it's called the Holy Bible, and it tells us exactly how our history should be interpreted. If a test made by mere humans shows "results" that differ from the default, infallible "owner's manual", well, then there's no need to look any deeper, because the tests are flawed.
Funny that Creation Scientists, who do research honestly, don't run into any of these "problems".
Praise be to Him!
According to you, the swimmer swam the first 9 laps at 4,567,939 mph and swam the last at the observed rate.
According to the creationists here, evolution is a religion and they make fun of it on every thread. Therefore, by your post, creationists are not cool.
The design and licensing of nuclear power plants is dependent on a constant decay rate. Ergo, you call for the revocation of the licenses of the nuclear power plants shutting down about 20 percent of our country's electrical supply. Thanks!
I have the same problems with human-developed language systems.
Humans invented the texts, so humans invented the interpretation of the texts, so the result can mean anything humans decide they mean. It’s not like when we arrived on earth we found an owner’s manual waiting for us with a chapter on interpreting texts that we humans developed.
Until somebody can resolve that for me, I will be skeptical of any human developed “text” that claims to communicate anything.
These threads are like watching "The Dark Crystal". A single creature, so torn by internal division that it actually separated. In fact, a whole race of such creatures.
The two halves of discussion here are like those beings; we have a curious, inquisitive nature, and we naturally gravitate to inspecting and investigating things and phenomena.
At the same time, we have immense fears, urging us to back away from the unknown. Truly we are torn.
So some of us satisfy our curiosity through the investigations of science, and some of us take respite and comfort from the perpetual unknowns by relaxing with a good book.
They don't have any of these problems because they reject all physics, astronomy, biology and geology.
You can’t fix stupid; however, you can elicit an occasional howler in response that makes your attempt worthwhile!
Actually, you should be. Each generation changes the language and twists the meaning of words around to mean something completely different (i.e., "gay". That USED to mean happily cheerful. Now...)
And "silly" originally meant "pious"
I could have asked you the same thing, although I'm pretty sure your point was to mock me. I chose not to respond in kind, but to build on what you said.
And "silly" originally meant "pious"
I didn't know that! Interesting how words get completely twisted around over time, isn't it?
“Evolution isn’t science, it’s sheer liberal conjecture.”
So, have you informed John H. Marburger III, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology during the Bush administration of this?
This is what he had to say regarding Evolution:
“Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology,” adding, “Much of the work supported by the National Institutes of Health depends heavily on the concepts of evolution. President Bush has supported the largest increases in the NIH budget in history.”
Thanks for the ping!
How long did you stay up last night thinking of that one!
The Bush adminstration got several things wrong. The borders, the response to the housing debacle, not fighting back, and this is just another example.
Why do you think a simple reiteration of the evolutionist cosmogonic myth that doesn't interact with any criticisms will be convincing?
You are referring to the incorrect Bush administration.
John H. Marburger III., was appointed by George W. Bush.
You know a little research on a topic before you respond is a good thing. It keeps one from looking foolish.
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.