Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

[james bond]

You miss my point. My question to you was, if the Earth is old, i.e. 65 million years in one of your estimates, then what other evidence do you have for it being so old without using radiometric measurements? Wouldn't you think there would be other facts and evidence to show the Earth is old? Such as tree rings? Geological explanations? Other scientific thesis supporting it? I question 65 million years just on the fact that we cannot do any experiments to show such long time. Thus, is there forensic evidence to show long time?

We had luchitociencia post in #77 some evidence.

I've run out of time so will continue when I can.

I am giving you another link. Science magazine, I think is October 1952, but surely is between years 1952 and 1953.

The petroleum companies wanted to know the age of the hydrocarbons from the Gulf of Mexico.

The assumed age of the hydrocarbons by part of the theory in that time was of millions of years, which they assumed will take for organic matter to be converted into hydrocarbon. As it was found liquid hydrocarbons in the sediments of the Gulf of New Mexico, the decision was to check its age.

The results were 11,800 -14,600 years of age (+- 1400 years), with samples extracted from different sites of the Grande Isle core. A composite carbonate sample from the core as well gave 12,300 years of age (+-1200 years), and the nonextractable organic matter , which comprises a major portion of the original organic content, had an average age of 9,200 years (+-100 years).

All the age determination was made by J. Laurence Kulp, from Lamont Geological Observatory of Columbia University.

There is plenty evidence that the story of dinosaurs living millions of years ago is just pure fairy tales. Just "a hypothesis", because evolution can't reach the title of being called "a theory".

What has happened is the evolutionists have gone to other radiometric dating since 1956 and chronological layers of the Earth from the 1850s. I'm assuming they used radiocarbon dating from 1946 to get the ages of hydrocarbons in the sediments of the Gulf of Mexico. The evos are claiming the newer radiometric dating has made dating more accurate. I don't think this is the case as other evidence does not back it up. Otherwise, simpletons such as Fort Fun Indiana would have the evidence.

In 1907, the Earth was 2.2 B yrs old. I think it goes to show they made assumptions that aren't correct. A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries: Radiometric dating finds Earth is 2.2 billion years old

 

[luchitociencia]

What has happened is the evolutionists have gone to other radiometric dating since 1956 and chronological layers of the Earth from the 1850s. I'm assuming they used radiocarbon dating from 1946 to get the ages of hydrocarbons in the sediments of the Gulf of Mexico. The evos are claiming the newer radiometric dating has made dating more accurate. I don't think this is the case as other evidence does not back it up. Otherwise, simpletons such as Fort Fun Indiana would have the evidence.

In 1907, the Earth was 2.2 B yrs old. I think it goes to show they made assumptions that aren't correct. A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries: Radiometric dating finds Earth is 2.2 billion years old

That is obvious, however, as I have pointed before, without verification of the results using a different method of measure, the new results of millions of years of age are the whole invalid.

This is not what I demand but what science requires.

Not a single result is valid without verification, and when is about chronological data, verification is a must, this requirement can't be avoided at all.

 

[james bond]

What has happened is the evolutionists have gone to other radiometric dating since 1956 and chronological layers of the Earth from the 1850s. I'm assuming they used radiocarbon dating from 1946 to get the ages of hydrocarbons in the sediments of the Gulf of Mexico. The evos are claiming the newer radiometric dating has made dating more accurate. I don't think this is the case as other evidence does not back it up. Otherwise, simpletons such as Fort Fun Indiana would have the evidence.

In 1907, the Earth was 2.2 B yrs old. I think it goes to show they made assumptions that aren't correct. A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries: Radiometric dating finds Earth is 2.2 billion years old

That is obvious, however, as I have pointed before, without verification of the results using a different method of measure, the new results of millions of years of age are the whole invalid.

This is not what I demand but what science requires.

Not a single result is valid without verification, and when is about chronological data, verification is a must, this requirement can't be avoided at all.

It really is a numbers game with the evos. We have estimated countless numbers of stars and trillions of galaxies. But that also means countless numbers of supernovas and trillions of black holes. Countless amount of radiation from CMB. Countless numbers of Higgs field and Higgs bosons. Yet, this is not enough for them to have life elsewhere such that they have had to resort to going to multiverses. What's missing is the countless numbers of life elsewhere. If we had billions of years, this should've been enough time easily. Thus, we have the fine tuning facts to explain for life being rare, but they don't believe that. It's what the evo scientists discovered.

To me, what's missing is the other life. What's missing is the evos not having a Kalam cosmological argument. All they have is hypothesis for explain this massive expansion of lifeless space matter.

The evos had to resort to finding long time because they had no explanation for what they saw and radiometric dating gave it to them. Thus, they poo poo anything with short time even though that came from secular or atheist scientists, as well.

We really should date things that we know using both methods and then see which one is more backed by science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why do you want to ignore the three different methods of dating the area surrounding the fossils which all agree to 65 million years ± 4%? You will have to find a reason why all three are simultaneously invalid.

.

You know no science, at least empirical science.

You can use a hundred of different radiometric methods of measure and still all of them are INVALID.

The only way to validate the results from radiometric measure is confronting a different method of measurement against all the radiometric methods.

This is the ONLY and SOLELY way to verify if the radiometric measure is accurate AND VALID.

You have mentioned Carbon 14. Well, this radiometric method used for organic matter has been verified with a different method of measure. It was with an old tree. The counting of the internal rings, which are known are added one per year in the trunk of the tree, was confronted to the measure obtained by Carbon 14 method. The results were very close and doing so this radiometric method was verified.

All your results with millions of years are nothing but mere conjectures which can't be trusted at all. You just can't verify a radiometric method using another radiometric method, because such is the same monkey but with different banana.

Before you continue with your infantile 65 millions of years of age for dinosaurs, you better go and find how to verify your radiometric method using a complete different method of measure.

And if you can't find any,,, well, there you go, it was your turn to be the loser of the story.

No need from you to argue with me, because no verification of the radiometric method means you are lost in your fantasy, and this forum is about science.

Stop spamming the science section with your religious horseshit!

 

[Wuwei]

I should be the one frustrated. First, you bring up contamination as your argument. We discuss that, but only for the carbon and diamonds. Nothing about what, if any, contamination was in the meteorite. In fact, I tried to get you to explain that after I pointed out that Clair Patterson (not Peterson) hypothesized it in 1956. You seem to agree that a meteorite readily explains a 4.5 B yr-old Earth.....................

Yes you should be frustrated. Your entire post conflates contamination and instrument limitations in two different technologies. The concepts of contamination and instrument limitations are entirely different between the two.

There are two types of assays for dating the ratio of carbon isotopes:

1. Measuring the radioactivity decay rate of a carbon sample with a phoswich detector.
2. Counting the actual molecules of C14 and C12 by separating them out in a mass spectrometer (AMS)

Please come back and tell me the difference between these two technologies. If you can't do that there is no point in continuing this discussion because you are thinking one technology when I'm actually referring to the other. One problem is that there are too many issues in play. They should be handled one at a time.

.

 

[Wuwei]

That's why I asked for other evidence that you have and Rhenium inclusion diamonds have nothing to do with age of the Earth. You are talking apples and oranges.

That is correct. What I am doing is showing that the earth is billions of years older than what creationists think. What I am not as interested in is demonstrating more closely how old the earth is thought to be.

 

[Wuwei]

Wuwei, let's look at how atheist scientists or evolutionists use radiomentric dating.

Non creationist scientists aren't always atheist.
There are many thousands of assays of dozens of long lived isotopes that have daughter products. The ratios indicate the age of the sample. If the earth were only 6,000 years old there would be no daughter products at all because 6000 years is way too short for any measurable amount to have been formed.
.

 

[Wuwei]

I figured you weren't going to be convinced by RATE, but they were also backed up by the AMS lab which you do not address.

That is not true at all. I covered it in detail with several paragraphs several posts back. I told you what the AMS technology is and how it has a different set of instrument limitations. You apparently didn't understand it at all.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Stop spamming the science section with religious horseshit!

 

[Weatherman2020]

It's you who cannot be in any sort of debate because you do not know science.

Sorry,you fraud. What I know or don't know about science is immaterial to the fact that the age of the earth is not the topic of any serious debate. Your idiotoc parlor tricks may work when brainwashing kids in Sunday school, but they dont work on rational adults. Only you delusional religious dummies think it is up for debate, and everyone else is laughing at you.

fact that the age of the earth is not the topic of any serious debate.

A Revised Estimate of the Age of the Earth

And until 1929 science said the earth ALWAYS existed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's you who cannot be in any sort of debate because you do not know science.

Sorry,you fraud. What I know or don't know about science is immaterial to the fact that the age of the earth is not the topic of any serious debate. Your idiotoc parlor tricks may work when brainwashing kids in Sunday school, but they dont work on rational adults. Only you delusional religious dummies think it is up for debate, and everyone else is laughing at you.

fact that the age of the earth is not the topic of any serious debate.

A Revised Estimate of the Age of the Earth

And until 1929 science said the earth ALWAYS existed.

What a fucking stupid post.

No, the age of the earth is not up for any serious debate. Neither is the fact that human actions are rapidlymwarming the client. Take your hot garbage to the 'Spiracy Section.

 

[james bond]

Stop spamming the science section with your religious horseshit!

You're the spammer and weirdo with your atheist magic beliefs.

 

[james bond]

Yes you should be frustrated. Your entire post conflates contamination and instrument limitations in two different technologies. The concepts of contamination and instrument limitations are entirely different between the two.

There are two types of assays for dating the ratio of carbon isotopes:

1. Measuring the radioactivity decay rate of a carbon sample with a phoswich detector.
2. Counting the actual molecules of C14 and C12 by separating them out in a mass spectrometer (AMS)

Please come back and tell me the difference between these two technologies. If you can't do that there is no point in continuing this discussion because you are thinking one technology when I'm actually referring to the other. One problem is that there are too many issues in play. They should be handled one at a time.

We already discussed AMS. Where does the phoswich detector come in? Are you saying that should have been used?

You are back to radiocarbon and I understand AMS. I brought that up first, but you did not understand that Dr. Baumgardner sent it to a reputable AMS lab. Otherwise, you would have started with that. You also did not pay attention to his rebuttal and what creation.com stated about it. You kept up with your contamination thesis which was shown to be irrelevant as both RATE and AMS confirmed it wasn't external contamination and from the handling. RATE, AMS, and creation.com stated that it was low and gave you the amounts.

Finally, you present some horseshit about Dr. Shirey who is irrelevant in a discussion about age of the Earth; he came years after RATE. That shows to me you did not understand about RATE and its coal and diamond measurements.

Anyway, we'll agree to disagree. I think you do know about the subject, but will not admit what the opposition is saying whom you admitted do not trust. This is what science is suppose to be about argument and never consensus or that consensus is right. I can accept your position of believing its contamination and nothing else since it would destroy your worldview of an old Earth.

However, you do not have anything else while I have the magnetic field that is losing its field and is suppose to last 20,000 years. The magnetic field would have run out before old Earth. This explains the global warming better than CO2.

New Study Shows How Rapidly Earth's Magnetic Field Is Changing

6 Horrible Consequences of Earth Losing its Magnetic Field

I also have:

None of the following were observed except for #6:
1. Cosmic evolution - big bang makes hydrogen
2. Chemical evolution - higher elements evolve
3. Evolution of stars and planets from gas
4. Organic evolution - life from rocks or abiogenesis
5. Macroevolution - changes between groups of plants and animals
6. Microevolution - changes within groups

Anyway, I won't trouble your AMS and phoswich brain with it as you'll just ignore it.

 

[james bond]

What a fucking stupid post.

No, the age of the earth is not up for any serious debate. Neither is the fact that human actions are rapidlymwarming the client. Take your hot garbage to the 'Spiracy Section.

It just goes to show that you do not understand science. You cannot discuss any science but black holes and astronomy, but not astrophysics. You are a weakling. Like I said, others have made you look like a fifth grader crying for his mommy like now.

Everybody knows you have never won a science argument here. Weatherman2020 whipped your arse in two posts.

 

[james bond]

Non creationist scientists aren't always atheist.
There are many thousands of assays of dozens of long lived isotopes that have daughter products. The ratios indicate the age of the sample. If the earth were only 6,000 years old there would be no daughter products at all because 6000 years is way too short for any measurable amount to have been formed.

Today's science is atheist since the 1850s. It does not recognize the supernatural and tries to explain it as natural. Life itself is supernatural. Only life begats life. Not rocks, not geysers, not oceans, not primordial soup, not anything outside the cell. Creation scientists also find beauty and complexity in nature is supernatural. It doesn't just happen, but there is intelligence behind it in its design. You made a big deal about AMS and phoswich detector. Something like that would not form in nature by itself. We can infer that there was intelligence behidnd its design.

That is not true at all. I covered it in detail with several paragraphs several posts back. I told you what the AMS technology is and how it has a different set of instrument limitations. You apparently didn't understand it at all.

Again, we'll agree to disagree. I understood what you said. Just didn't agree with it and it wasn't what RATE and the AMS lab did.

 

[Wuwei]

You are back to radiocarbon and I understand AMS. I brought that up first, but you did not understand that Dr. Baumgardner sent it to a reputable AMS lab. Otherwise, you would have started with that. You also did not pay attention to his rebuttal and what creation.com stated about it. You kept up with your contamination thesis which was shown to be irrelevant as both RATE and AMS confirmed it wasn't external contamination and from the handling. RATE, AMS, and creation.com stated that it was low and gave you the amounts.

That is absolutely not true about Dr Baumgardner. I covered it in a more complete post of the history of the dialog between Baumgardner and Bertsche. I cited that more complete dialog here: Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...
It is a long read, but I understood that dialog. In my post I said that there is nitrogen in diamonds and the atomic masses of C14 and N14 are the same. What you didn't understand is that AMS is a mass spectrometer and counts the number of atoms that have a particular mass. Since C14 and N have the same mass there would be a miss-count of the C14. The contamination was not outside the diamond. It was inside.
I further said that there was not enough information in the dialog of those two to really understand just what the accuracy of the AMS was. That is, there was no information on the standard deviation of measurements and the affect of electric and magnetic field nonlinearity in the AMS that would influence the error.

But all that went way over your head and you quoted an article that referred to nitrogen contamination in the type of instrument that measures radiation with a phoswich detector. They are two completely different technologies!!! I spelled out the difference:

1. Measuring the radioactivity decay rate of a carbon sample with a phoswich detector.
2. Counting the actual molecules of C14 and C12 by separating them out in a mass spectrometer (AMS)

Then I asked for you to describe those two different technologies and you were confused and said,

We already discussed AMS. Where does the phoswich detector come in? Are you saying that should have been used?

It's obvious you don't understand either technology and the different types of inaccuracies they can have. I have been wasting my time.

Finally, you present some horseshit about Dr. Shirey who is irrelevant in a discussion about age of the Earth; he came years after RATE. That shows to me you did not understand about RATE and its coal and diamond measurements.

Don't you read my posts? I said that the Shirey put a minimum age of the universe at 65 M years. I told you that already. I told you that what I was doing is showing that an age of the earth and universe is way beyond 6000 years. I was not attempting to show what the age of the earth is.

None of the following were observed except for #6:
1. Cosmic evolution - big bang makes hydrogen
2. Chemical evolution - higher elements evolve
3. Evolution of stars and planets from gas
4. Organic evolution - life from rocks or abiogenesis
5. Macroevolution - changes between groups of plants and animals
6. Microevolution - changes within groups

Anyway, I won't trouble your AMS and phoswich brain with it as you'll just ignore it.

No I won't ignore it. I will simply dismiss it as a digression that does not cover anything about proving the earth is 6000 years old. Dating with isotope decay is what is relevant. You can disbelieve whatever you want, but you are way too distracted to keep your mind focused on the nature of the fact that isotopic dating is hard science and is the major way of discussing age of billions of years.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Today's science is atheist since the 1850s. It does not recognize the supernatural and tries to explain it as natural. Life itself is supernatural. Only life begats life. Not rocks, not geysers, not oceans, not primordial soup, not anything outside the cell. Creation scientists also find beauty and complexity in nature is supernatural. It doesn't just happen, but there is intelligence behind it in its design. You made a big deal about AMS and phoswich detector. Something like that would not form in nature by itself. We can infer that there was intelligence behidnd its design.

That's metaphysics not physics. I have studied physics and am awed by the nature of the Standard Model and the prediction of the Higgs boson, and the very fact that the basic laws of physics follows mathematics to an unprecedented accuracy. The agreement between basic particle physics experiments with mathematical models is in the range of one part per billion or trillion. To me the great mysteries are why the universe follows mathematics that we can understand; the complexity of the plethora of elements and how it led to organic compounds and the nature of life; how the universe became the billions of galaxies with billions of stars. And finally the extrasolar planets which is the subject of the OP.

The difference between you and me is that you want to worship the "intelligent designer" with whatever liturgy you use. My "liturgy" is to investigate the "design" and not worship the "designer". You get your design from the bible. I get mine from detailed investigation with an open mind.

.

 

[james bond]

That is absolutely not true about Dr Baumgardner. I covered it in a more complete post of the history of the dialog between Baumgardner and Bertsche. I cited that more complete dialog here: Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

Are you quoting Angelo or the sci-fi writer in Quora ?

It is a long read, but I understood that dialog. In my post I said that there is nitrogen in diamonds and the atomic masses of C14 and N14 are the same. What you didn't understand is that AMS is a mass spectrometer and counts the number of atoms that have a particular mass. Since C14 and N have the same mass there would be a miss-count of the C14. The contamination was not outside the diamond. It was inside.
I further said that there was not enough information in the dialog of those two to really understand just what the accuracy of the AMS was. That is, there was no information on the standard deviation of measurements and the affect of electric and magnetic field nonlinearity in the AMS that would influence the error.

I already replied to this objection at least twice using creation.com. Do you read my links?:
"The 14C was produced by neutron capture by 14N impurities in the diamonds. But this would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount even in best case scenarios of normal decay. And as Dr Paul Giem points out: ‘One can hypothesize that neutrons were once much more plentiful than they are now, and that is why there is so much carbon-14 in our experimental samples. But the number of neutrons required must be over a million times more than those found today, for at least 6,000 years; and every 5,730 years that we put the neutron shower back doubles the number of neutrons required. Every time we halve the duration of the neutron shower we roughly double its required intensity. Eventually the problem becomes insurmountable. In addition, since nitrogen creates carbon-14 from neutrons 110,000 times more easily than does carbon-13, a sample with 0.000 0091% nitrogen should have twice the carbon-14 content of a sample without any nitrogen. If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample, radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data. Perhaps this effect should be looked for by anyone seriously proposing that significant quantities of carbon-14 were produced by nuclear synthesis in situ.’2 Also, if atmospheric contamination were responsible, the entire carbon content would have to be exchanged every million years or so. But if this were occurring, we would expect huge variations in radiocarbon dates with porosity and thickness, which would also render the method useless.1 Dr Baumgardner thus first thought that the 14C must have been there right from the beginning. But if nuclear decay were accelerated, say a recent episode of 500 million years worth, it could explain some of the observed amounts. Indeed, his RATE colleagues have shown good evidence for accelerated decay in the past, which would invalidate radiometric dating."

Diamonds: a creationists best friend - creation.com

Where does Baumgardner or creation.com mention a phoswich detector? Please explain what you are talking about ?

Then I asked for you to describe those two different technologies and you were confused and said,

I asked you questions about the phoswich detector and how was it relevant, but did not answer.

Don't you read my posts? I said that the Shirey put a minimum age of the universe at 65 M years. I told you that already. I told you that what I was doing is showing that an age of the earth and universe is way beyond 6000 years. I was not attempting to show what the age of the earth is.

Yes, I did read it. Again, why are you arguing apples and oranges? If Shirey put a minimum age, then it doesn't mean that he was right. He started off stating the Earth was 4.5 B yrs old and that was young. Shirey did not mention anything about RATE. If one wants to compare how his included diamonds to the results Dr. Baumgardner got, then Shirey or you should have RATE look into it. This is why you are comparing apples to oranges. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase for you claims.

I said let's just agree to disagree. Instead, I suggested measuring the dates of things we already know its age using radiocarbon vs radiometric dating.

No I won't ignore it. I will simply dismiss it as a digression that does not cover anything about proving the earth is 6000 years old. Dating with isotope decay is what is relevant. You can disbelieve whatever you want, but you are way too distracted to keep your mind focused on the nature of the fact that isotopic dating is hard science and is the major way of discussing age of billions of years.

I've already stated radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions. GIGO. I've read articles where they measured seals and got hundreds of thousands of years old. They were only a few years old.

"Radiometric dating is a much misunderstood phenomenon. Evolutionists often misunderstand the method, assuming it gives a definite age for tested samples. Creationists also often misunderstand it, claiming that the process is inaccurate.

Radiometric Dating Is Not Inaccurate
Perhaps a good place to start this article would be to affirm that radiometric dating is not inaccurate. It is certainly incorrect, and it is certainly based on wrong assumptions, but it is not inaccurate.

What do I mean? How can something be accurate and yet wrong? To understand this point, we need to understand what exactly is being measured during a radiometric dating test. One thing that is not being directly measured is the actual age of the sample."

...

"Based Upon Assumptions
The radioactive decay process above can be seen to produce 8 alpha-particles for each one atom of U-238. Each α-particle could gain new electrons and become an atom of helium. The rate of diffusion of helium from a zircon crustal can be measured. It turns out that this rate of diffusion of helium is compatible with the crystals being about 5,000 years old, not 1.5 billion years old. Although assumptions 2 and 3 are not provable, they actually seem very likely in this particular example. Therefore, it seems that the first assumption must be wrong1. Remember that we have already said that these experimenters are highly skilled. It is therefore unlikely that the laboratory technicians have made a mistake in their measurements of U-238 or Pb-206. The only possible conclusion, therefore, is that the half-life of U-238 has not been constant throughout the lifetime of the granite and its zircon crystals.

Other radiometric dating methods are based on similar assumptions. If the assumptions cannot be trusted, then the calculations based on them are unsound. It is for this reason that creationists question radiometric dating methods and do not accept their results.

1. For more on this important work, please see Humphreys, R., Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay, in Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A., and Chaffin, E.F. (2005), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume 2, (California: Institute for Creation Research), pages 25-100."

Radiometric Dating — Is It Accurate?

 

[james bond]

Today's science is atheist since the 1850s. It does not recognize the supernatural and tries to explain it as natural. Life itself is supernatural. Only life begats life. Not rocks, not geysers, not oceans, not primordial soup, not anything outside the cell. Creation scientists also find beauty and complexity in nature is supernatural. It doesn't just happen, but there is intelligence behind it in its design. You made a big deal about AMS and phoswich detector. Something like that would not form in nature by itself. We can infer that there was intelligence behidnd its design.

That's metaphysics not physics. I have studied physics and am awed by the nature of the Standard Model and the prediction of the Higgs boson, and the very fact that the basic laws of physics follows mathematics to an unprecedented accuracy. The agreement between basic particle physics experiments with mathematical models is in the range of one part per billion or trillion. To me the great mysteries are why the universe follows mathematics that we can understand; the complexity of the plethora of elements and how it led to organic compounds and the nature of life; how the universe became the billions of galaxies with billions of stars. And finally the extrasolar planets which is the subject of the OP.

The difference between you and me is that you want to worship the "intelligent designer" with whatever liturgy you use. My "liturgy" is to investigate the "design" and not worship the "designer". You get your design from the bible. I get mine from detailed investigation with an open mind.

.

What happens today is your atheist scientists are the ones who create your metaphysics in regards to multiverses when there is no evidence for them. Things do not just pop into existence.

Should multiverse theories be rebranded as meta physics?
Should multiverse theories be rebranded as meta physics?

Multiverses replaced God
Has the Multiverse Replaced God? | Reasonable Faith

As for what you stated above, I already brought that up with the evidence of the supernatural right in front of your nose as life. Or that which keeps us alive. Once you die, then you enter a different state. Next, I presented the beauty and complexity in nature as evidence for the supernatural. The things you mention do not just happen randomly or without intelligence behind it.

Who came up with the Standard Model? One of the scientists is religious. Abraham Pais' religion is Judaism.

Peter Higgs of Higgs boson fame is an atheist, but believes religion and science can co-exist. He criticizes Richard Dawkins and his approach. I agree. The creation scientists should not have been systematically removed from peer reviews and should be able to present their papers in science journals. Your theoretical physicists and physicists believe in multiverses. That is metaphysics, too. The concept of dark energy sounds like metaphysics when it violates the law of thermodynamics as part of laws of nature.

Please do not use the words "intelligent designer." That gets confused with the Discovery Institute. ID and God as designer with intelligence behind it are two different sciences. Where the overlap is both entities do not believe in evolution.

I don't think you get it from detailed investigation with an open mind when you cannot discuss other evidence to back up your old age of the Earth. You have no other evidence besides radiometric dating which is based on wrong assumptions such as the present is the key to the past. You won't believe gravity wasn't as strong in the past even though presented with the evidence. This is because I already mentioned that it destroys your old Earth worldview. Your side also believes in superposition of the sedimentary layers. I already stated there was a global flood and that greatly changed the layers. One evidence is the surface of the Earth is coered by 3/4 water. How did that happen? Instead, while I know you can understand reading a science paper, I think you're still very narrow in your approach. We each have different postulates, so I do not think we will end up agreeing when we disagree. Otherwise, your worldview will be destroyed. What I have going for me is that my basic science theories cannot change while yours can. How many different ages of the Earth have you had? Why were they wrong? What makes you think that you are right now when your opponent claims you are making invalid assumptions?

 

[the other mike]

We'll let China figure it out.

China Considers Voyager-like Mission to Interstellar Space