Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods
CMI ^ | July 30, 2009 | Tas Walker, Ph.D.

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; gibberish; intelligentdesign; junkscience; pseudoscience; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-232 next last
To: Leftism is Mentally Deranged; GodGunsGuts
No one is saying that the Hebrew God created the universe 5000 years ago. Just that the yardsticks used by many scientists are not reliable, that there is no standard measure by which to calibrate them.

LOL actually GGG has said precisely that.

51 posted on 07/30/2009 11:43:19 AM PDT by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you can’t reason someone out of something that they didn’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1

Now the name calling!!


52 posted on 07/30/2009 11:45:02 AM PDT by org.whodat (Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

You are spoiling all the fun with this so-called “science”.

Science doesn’t belong here, troll!

This is a science-free zone!


53 posted on 07/30/2009 11:45:19 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Then you can show how that could have changed

Very simple: a change in fundamental constants, just as physicists are already claiming is happening or has happened with other constants.

reproduce that in a lab

How do you expect me to change fundamental constants in the lab? And while you're at it, recreate the transition from a bacteria to a human in the lab.

54 posted on 07/30/2009 11:45:47 AM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: facedown

From the article that you obviously never bothered to read or understand:

“you cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history”

Do you see how your analogy breaks down from the get-go, Facedown? If not, let me know, and I’ll try to explain it with smaller words that even the child in your analogy could understand.


55 posted on 07/30/2009 11:46:01 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: saganite
I know, I know, the argument is “the rate of decay was not always the same”. OK, prove it. Specifically how or what caused the rate of decay to change and can that be reproduced?

And is your post an example of the intellectual scientific debate that evos bemoan is lacking on FR?

56 posted on 07/30/2009 11:48:14 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Hey, I’ve had dates like that. You think she’s a nice girl and suddenly-boom! She’s trying to run your life! Oh wait, I wandered into the creationist ghetto again. See ya!

And is your post an example of the intellectual scientific debate that evos bemoan is lacking on FR?

I hate it when the copy button doesn't copy.....:(

57 posted on 07/30/2009 11:49:12 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: metmom

There isn’t any scientific debate on these Evo threads so your question is meaningless.


58 posted on 07/30/2009 11:51:45 AM PDT by saganite (What would Sully do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin
Ira: The downside of just copying your arguments off the web (in particular, from the ASA) is that there are already rebuttals out there.

A Christian Response to Radiometric dating by Dr. Tasman B. Walker.
59 posted on 07/30/2009 11:51:54 AM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

And using the generic walmart brand crayons to fill it in...


60 posted on 07/30/2009 11:53:49 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: saganite

No thanks to the evos.


61 posted on 07/30/2009 11:59:07 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
That's simple, it is reproduced in the lab every day and observed. We also can test objects of a known age, such as when specific monuments where built or burnt areas in the tree ring history. It is shown through observation and testing.

First off, reliable historic records only go back a few thousand years. There are "older" records, but you'll find they're generally a bunch of local mythos, such as the Japanese emperor-gods and the like. Dendrochronology records go back to about the time of the flood, and they get really spotty in the early years; there's a lot of criticism of them at over 5k-6k years. But you're not making claims of 5-6k years; you're making claims of billions.

Secondly, your "reproduced in the lab every day" line is exactly what you're being criticized for -- assuming that whatever applies today applies to yesterday, or is at least linearly correlated. But that's not even what many of the physicists who promote radiometric dating say about, for example, the Big Bang. Even physicists admit that "universal constants" can be radically different at different times.

To put it another way. I could have stood by Mount St. Helens every day for a hundred years up to May 17th, 1980, making measurements of how many catastrophic eruptions there were. Each day I would have put a "zero" on my tally sheet. The conclusion, by your logic? Mount Saint Helens has never erupted and never will.

Reality doesn't work that way. Just because a measurement one day is the same as it was a previous day doesn't mean it's eternally unchanging.

62 posted on 07/30/2009 11:59:58 AM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PC99; steve-b; xcamel; org.whodat; Filo; GodGunsGuts; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Likewise for the rest of the evo malcontents...

And are these posts of yours an example of the intellectual scientific debate that evos bemoan is lacking on FR?

PC99 : Even if true ... doesn’t advance the supernatural theory that the magical Hebrew God created the Universe 5,000 years ago.

steve-b :GodGutsGunsGibberish Alert.

xcamel:I think a certain ‘creat-inst’ poster was exposed to a bit too much radiation...

org.whodat:Another straw-man post from, the coloring book spams.

Filo:Not nearly as funny as people incapable of understanding science espousing the flaws in said science from abject ignorance.

headsonpikes :You are spoiling all the fun with this so-called “science”. Science doesn’t belong here, troll! This is a science-free zone!

xcamel:And using the generic walmart brand crayons to fill it in

************************************************************
Looks a lot like DC.....


63 posted on 07/30/2009 12:00:56 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If not, let me know, and I’ll try to explain it with smaller words that even the child in your analogy could understand.

Have a nice day.

64 posted on 07/30/2009 12:06:24 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Some specific isotopes are created specifically from this decay. They aren't isotopes found in nature outside this process.

The presumption, then, is that there were none of those isotopes at one point. How is that point in time determined?

Wouldn't the material have started decaying as it was formed? Unless it all formed at once, there would be no accurate way to determine the age, as some of the parent material would already have been decaying as other of the material would be forming.

65 posted on 07/30/2009 12:06:25 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"metmom hasn't created an about page... or much of anything else for that matter"
66 posted on 07/30/2009 12:07:05 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Common sense, helps, some of us were having a laugh about the spam poster and his continuous straw man argument posts. He's a carbon based life form. But we were try to do it without resorting to the low life art of name calling.

What is an evo??

67 posted on 07/30/2009 12:10:43 PM PDT by org.whodat (Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Not having a degree in science doesn’t mean that one can’t tell the difference between the theory of evolution (which can be tested and revised or shown as completely incorrect, as any theory should be) and the belief in creationism or ID which, by their very nature, cannot be tested and must be taken on faith.


68 posted on 07/30/2009 12:15:15 PM PDT by nostrum09
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

What’s an EVO? Probably a 3-wheeled Yugoslavian automobile that runs on squirrel oil...


69 posted on 07/30/2009 12:21:17 PM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: nostrum09

Doesn’t matter. Even with a degree you will be considered a brain-washed part of the big-science machine. ;)


70 posted on 07/30/2009 12:22:37 PM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep
What’s an EVO? Probably a 3-wheeled Yugoslavian automobile that runs on squirrel oil...

I think you are correct, the question is how old is that squirrel oil.

71 posted on 07/30/2009 12:25:02 PM PDT by org.whodat (Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Treating any of this as a “science debate” only reinforces the false impression given by the Creationists that there is a legitimate scientific debate going on, with two equally valid sides.

There isn’t. This “fight” is a political fight dreamed up by an extremist crackpot minority of religious zealots.

Despite their arrogant claims to represent the “Christian point of view”, the creationists and their fundamentalist friends constitute a very tiny minority in mainstream religion. They are an abomination.

In essence, the fundamentalists and their creationist allies want to do for the United States what the fundamentalist Taliban did for Afghanistan and the Ayatollahs have done for Iran—they want to run the country in accordance with their interpretation of “God’s will”.

Every mainstream Christian denomination in the United States rejects the paranoid and ultra-literalist world-view of the creationists, and sees no conflict at all between Christian faith and modern science.

They should crawl back to their caves and huddle around their book burnings; they are the true enemy of Christianity.


72 posted on 07/30/2009 12:35:02 PM PDT by baclava
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: metmom; CaptRon

Likewise for the rest of the evo malcontents...

And are these posts of yours an example of the intellectual scientific debate that evos bemoan is lacking on FR?

PC99 : Even if true ... doesn’t advance the supernatural theory that the magical Hebrew God created the Universe 5,000 years ago.

steve-b :GodGutsGunsGibberish Alert.

xcamel:I think a certain ‘creat-inst’ poster was exposed to a bit too much radiation...

org.whodat:Another straw-man post from, the coloring book spams.

Filo:Not nearly as funny as people incapable of understanding science espousing the flaws in said science from abject ignorance.

headsonpikes :You are spoiling all the fun with this so-called “science”. Science doesn’t belong here, troll! This is a science-free zone!

xcamel:And using the generic walmart brand crayons to fill it in

************************************************************
Looks a lot like DC.....


Yes and how curious some posters get their feelings hurt when creationists fight back. Why THEN we’re the vicious hate-filled, snide ones.


73 posted on 07/30/2009 12:40:01 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1
Are you just trying to troll? Making fun of someone's religious beliefs is not cool. And calling Christianity 'the supernatural theory that the magical Hebrew God created the Universe 5,000 years ago' is definitely not conservative.

I think that characterization is accurate. I dont think anyone should take offense to it, unless one is hypersensitive about such things. Also, not all Conservatives are religious.

74 posted on 07/30/2009 12:48:33 PM PDT by Paradox (Obama - Harvard = Sharpton {thanks to sfvgto})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

Folowing their same logic, I guess all the truly evil things done by “The Relegion Of Peace” are perfectly justified.


75 posted on 07/30/2009 1:06:52 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

“Yes and how curious some posters get their feelings hurt when creationists fight back.”

Unfortunately for you, you cannot fight back with scientific research and rigor - you are left with hysterics, extrapolation and exaggeration.

Most folks who believe in evolution can happily co-exist with creationists that are creationists as a matter of faith. It’s when creationists pretend to engage in scientific research, like the subject author of this thread, that things degrade.


76 posted on 07/30/2009 1:28:27 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Filo

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/a_dump_on_aig%27s_tas_walker.htm


77 posted on 07/30/2009 1:50:35 PM PDT by mgstarr ("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

NO-sir-project-alot.

A review of the facts illustrates you’re in desperate need of the services of a cult deprogrammer.

Everytime GGG posts the scientific rebuttals you and your ilk have nothing to offer but helpless insults, hysterics, extrapolation and exaggerations.

That’s there for all to see.


78 posted on 07/30/2009 2:12:01 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Wouldn't the material have started decaying as it was formed? Unless it all formed at once, there would be no accurate way to determine the age, as some of the parent material would already have been decaying as other of the material would be forming.

Yes, but your reasoning is backwards.

The radioactive material (all heavy matter in fact) came from a supernova at which point it started decaying.

The question you should be asking is what does that date, except for the supernova?

79 posted on 07/30/2009 2:15:52 PM PDT by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you can’t reason someone out of something that they didn’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And are these posts of yours an example of the intellectual scientific debate that evos bemoan is lacking on FR?

What possible use would producing real science be in this context. The 'thumpers aren't capable of understanding or accepting it. It's more than well enough documented in millions of pages of scientific study, research and whatnot. Posting snippets of it here to refute utter nonsense is pointless.

Poking fun at those who can't comprehend it? That's priceless.
80 posted on 07/30/2009 2:39:12 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!

I have a problem with all human-developed dating methods.

Humans invented the tests, so humans invented the interpretation of the tests, 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 tests that we humans developed.

Until somebody can resolve that for me, I will be skeptical of any human developed “test” that claims to date anything.


81 posted on 07/30/2009 3:20:50 PM PDT by SandyInSeattle (I'm the one Janet warned you about)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

Denying the fact that God gave man the ability to study and draw valid conclusions about the universe and his environment is pretty ignorant, even for a professed Christian.


82 posted on 07/30/2009 3:37:01 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

That didn’t quite answer my question, but thanks for replying.


83 posted on 07/30/2009 3:39:25 PM PDT by SandyInSeattle (I'm the one Janet warned you about)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1

A mechanical engineer, with an honorary degree in earth science, is that not like having a D.D.S. perform neurosurgery?

If he has in fact refuted Radiometric dating why has he not picked up his Noble prize?


84 posted on 07/30/2009 4:13:37 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

“NO-sir-project-alot.”

Now, I know this will sound patronizing, and that’s because it is...don’t you worry your little head about all this science stuff. It’s ok for you and your creation playmates to pretend to be scientists, but don’t get yourself into too much trouble playing with the big boys - they know what they are doing and are much smarter than you.

“Everytime GGG posts the scientific rebuttals you and your ilk have nothing to offer but helpless insults, hysterics, extrapolation and exaggerations.”

You’re so cute when you play with your toys! Now, go clean your room.


85 posted on 07/30/2009 4:23:18 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

“Everytime GGG posts the scientific rebuttals”

GGG has yet to post even one scientific rebuttal.

ID/Creationism is not science.

The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. ~ Micheal Medved senior fellow Discovery Institute


86 posted on 07/30/2009 4:23:59 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: 556x45
One thing I have learned in a long life: All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

Albert Einstein

87 posted on 07/30/2009 4:40:42 PM PDT by KDD ( it's not what people don't know that make them ignorant it's what they know that ain't so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

NO-sir-project-alot.

You should seriously get yourself looked into.


88 posted on 07/30/2009 5:51:40 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

Evolution isn’t science, it’s sheer liberal conjecture.


89 posted on 07/30/2009 6:03:58 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

“You should seriously get yourself looked into.”

You and your creation play-scientists will one day get to grow up! You’re playing in your creation treehouse while real men and women are advancing science and mankind with big-boy research that you can’t even comprehend.

Sure, you’re a bunch of ungrateful “creation science” brats, but we advance knowledge for all people, even the bad little “creation science” boys and girls that won’t do their homework because it is too hard for them.

Don’t worry your little heads, the adults are in charge and will keep the world safe, despite your “creation science” tantrums. One day you’ll appreciate the world the hard workers and serious scientists have created for you....

Until then, sit up straight and don’t talk back. It’s rude for little boys and girls to do that.


90 posted on 07/30/2009 6:14:09 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

You should seriously get yourself seen about. Tend to it. Really.


91 posted on 07/30/2009 6:19:11 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

“You should seriously get yourself seen about. Tend to it. Really.”

Don’t stick your little feet into the big shoes of real men and women of science, and don’t tug on their coats when they are busy.


92 posted on 07/30/2009 6:25:55 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: baclava; metmom
There isn’t. This “fight” is a political fight dreamed up by an extremist crackpot minority of religious zealots.

Despite their arrogant claims to represent the “Christian point of view”, the creationists and their fundamentalist friends constitute a very tiny minority in mainstream religion. They are an abomination.

Are you purposefully lying or just that indoctrinated? ************************************************** http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719 ********************************************************** Free Republic Poll on Evolution http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63 ********************************************************** Creationism makes a comeback in US http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts *********************************************************** Teaching creation and evolution in schools Solid research reveals American beliefs http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp ************************************************************ Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63 ************************************************************ Public Divided on Origins of Life http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties ************************************************************ Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included) http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson

93 posted on 07/30/2009 6:28:19 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Leftism is Mentally Deranged
No one is saying that the Hebrew God created the universe 5000 years ago. Just that the yardsticks used by many scientists are not reliable, that there is no standard measure by which to calibrate them.

The why are creationists investing so much energy discounting the possibility that the universe is billions, rather than thousands, of years old?

If it were acceptable to them that a universe billions of years old would be compatible with the Bible, they wouldn't be spending so much time on the subject.

94 posted on 07/30/2009 6:41:55 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: All

Wow. The venom on this thread has rendered me (nearly) speechless. It’s sad that creationist points of view must be beaten down, insulted, and mocked.

Folks, if the topic and those who are interested in it bother you so much, there are plenty of other threads to click on. If we’re so wrong, why not leave us to our delusions and go on with your lives?


95 posted on 07/30/2009 6:44:14 PM PDT by SandyInSeattle (What came first? The word, or the thought behind the word?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle
"Until somebody can resolve that for me, I will be skeptical of any human developed “test” that claims to date anything."

Perhaps an analogy would be in order.

Paraphrasing:

"Humans invented the tests thermometers, so humans invented the interpretation of the tests thermometers, so the result can mean anything humans decide they mean."
I think you'll agree that substituting "thermometers" for "tests" changes the way you might look at that statement. The earliest thermometers were developed to measure and quantify a phenomenon that had not been studied in that manner before. One of the important aspects of that development was the provision of a step-by-step explanation of what was done and how it was done, so that the results could be duplicated by interested observers to prove the utility of the devices.

Without that independent verification, the equipment would have been as you describe, subject to the whimsical interpretation of the inventors.

With it, further analytical steps could be taken, such as measuring the shrinkage of objects when cooled. It was such experiments, by the way, that led us to the conclusion that there was a point of temperature below which an object could not be cooled, an "absolute zero".

Anyway, the utility of thermometers was proven in this manner by those wanted independent and suspicious experimenters, and this was exactly the same kind of development path that reliable dating methods followed as well. First a method was proposed and explained, so that others could verify it, and then after verification, which can be repeated at any time, further steps were taken to extend the range of reliability and meaningful interpretation that could be gleaned from an accurate way of determining the age of objects of interest.

These methods, by the way, entwine and reinforce each other in various ways, but they can all be verified at any time by simply repeating the original steps involved in developing them.

96 posted on 07/30/2009 6:49:12 PM PDT by NicknamedBob (Oh well. Forewarned is forearmed. I'm up to my elbows in forearms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Filo; metmom; Caramelgal; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; valkyry1; MrB; Ethan Clive Osgoode; CottShop
What possible use would producing real science be in this context. The 'thumpers aren't capable of understanding or accepting it. It's more than well enough documented in millions of pages of scientific study, research and whatnot. Posting snippets of it here to refute utter nonsense is pointless.

Poking fun at those who can't comprehend it? That's priceless.

Uh-huh. Then why do the evos scream and cry and whine when they get a little of their own verbage back in their faces and want more civility?

I'll tell you why, because liberalism is a disease.

97 posted on 07/30/2009 6:49:56 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

No really. You owe it to yourself. Being a miserable liberal cultist is just no way to go through life.


98 posted on 07/30/2009 6:54:01 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

“No really. You owe it to yourself. Being a miserable liberal cultist is just no way to go through life.”

You are a bad, bad boy. Go to bed.


99 posted on 07/30/2009 7:02:48 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob

Ah, I knew I could count on you for a reasonable response instead of the insults another poster hurled at me earlier. :-)


100 posted on 07/30/2009 7:02:59 PM PDT by SandyInSeattle (What came first? The word, or the thought behind the word?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-232 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson