Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Actually no but there are more than enough obelisks outside of Egypt and I've seen many of them in various cities around the world.Oh, have you been there?Go to Egypt and check the monuments there. The granite they used is unchanged in 5,500 or so years. The inscriptions are still crisp and readable.
Anyone who uses C-14 to date anything older than 60,000 or so years old is not a scientist.Actually no but there are more than enough obelisks outside of Egypt and I've seen many of them in various cities around the world.Oh, have you been there?Go to Egypt and check the monuments there. The granite they used is unchanged in 5,500 or so years. The inscriptions are still crisp and readable.
I was thinking these monuments you mention help my case more than yours. Many of them are ruins.
As for oldest rocks in the Earth, they need to be checked through radiocarbon dating because basically what the atheist scientists do is radiometric dating. RATES would be their opposition as they will use radiocarbon dating if C-14 is remaining. All of the atheist measurements are very biased evidence. It's an insult to common sense.
Yes you’re closed minded. We know.I dont need to burn the book, because i am not gullible enough to get sucked in by it. That was advice tailored to you.That’s right burn books. That works. That’s real science...for dummies.Then burn that dumb book you posted.A mind is a terrible thing to waste.Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.Yes we know you’re a fool.Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.Smart people know science is never settled.
Haha, got it!
Haha, you 'spiracy nutters always get that backwards. No, i am the definition of open minded, as i go where the evidence leads. You guys make your mind up at square one on some nutty horseshit on bad evidence, and no new information ever dislodges you from that position.Yes you’re closed minded. We know.I dont need to burn the book, because i am not gullible enough to get sucked in by it. That was advice tailored to you.That’s right burn books. That works. That’s real science...for dummies.Then burn that dumb book you posted.A mind is a terrible thing to waste.Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.Yes we know you’re a fool.Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.Smart people know science is never settled.
Haha, got it!
Anyone who uses C-14 to date anything older than 60,000 or so years old is not a scientist
Doesn't look like a ruin to me. I hope I look this good when I'm 3,300 years old.
Can’t fix stupid.Haha, you 'spiracy nutters always get that backwards. No, i am the definition of open minded, as i go where the evidence leads. You guys make your mind up at square one on some nutty horseshit on bad evidence, and no new information ever dislodges you from that position.Yes you’re closed minded. We know.I dont need to burn the book, because i am not gullible enough to get sucked in by it. That was advice tailored to you.That’s right burn books. That works. That’s real science...for dummies.Then burn that dumb book you posted.A mind is a terrible thing to waste.Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.Yes we know you’re a fool.Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.Smart people know science is never settled.
Haha, got it!
So , once again, the utter opposite of what you say is true. You're the close minded nutter, and i am the open mined, evidence based thinker.
Actually, haha, nothing favors religious dogma (you call it creation science, haha), because creation science is not science, haha.Anyone who uses C-14 to date anything older than 60,000 or so years old is not a scientist
Wrong and you are using biased science as I pointed out. If there is plenty of C-14 left, then it can and should be radiocarbon dated. Millions of years would mean no C-14 left.
Doesn't look like a ruin to me. I hope I look this good when I'm 3,300 years old.
You still don't get it haha. Thousands of years old favors Jesus, creation science, and me.
Sure you can. You already realize that your pole shift pseudoscience is horseshit, so you stopped talking about it. See? I fixed stupid.Can’t fix stupid.Haha, you 'spiracy nutters always get that backwards. No, i am the definition of open minded, as i go where the evidence leads. You guys make your mind up at square one on some nutty horseshit on bad evidence, and no new information ever dislodges you from that position.Yes you’re closed minded. We know.I dont need to burn the book, because i am not gullible enough to get sucked in by it. That was advice tailored to you.That’s right burn books. That works. That’s real science...for dummies.Then burn that dumb book you posted.A mind is a terrible thing to waste.Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.Yes we know you’re a fool.Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.Smart people know science is never settled.
Haha, got it!
So , once again, the utter opposite of what you say is true. You're the close minded nutter, and i am the open mined, evidence based thinker.
I have.
Wait. 15 gigatons of ice is in the Bible?
We discussed this weeks ago, but you couldn't answer Archimedes Principle.
Your 15 gigatons of ice claim.
We get hundreds of gigatons of ice melting at the poles with the warming trend now, but no flooding.
Scientific method
We discussed this weeks ago and you couldn't even answer Archimedes Principle. For flooding to occur, we need the water on land to runoff into the ocean. You need to move on. People have been laughing at you for weeks.
Trust me. I understand Archimedes. I’m an engineer.
There’s a big difference between water being melted and raising sea level which the asteroid didn’t do and water being vaporized into the stratosphere and causing catastrophic rain and flood events around the world which the asteroid striking a glacier did do.
You can believe what you want to. It's too wacko for me.
If you weren’t so dumb, you’d know what the word theory means.Sure you can. You already realize that your pole shift pseudoscience is horseshit, so you stopped talking about it. See? I fixed stupid.Can’t fix stupid.Haha, you 'spiracy nutters always get that backwards. No, i am the definition of open minded, as i go where the evidence leads. You guys make your mind up at square one on some nutty horseshit on bad evidence, and no new information ever dislodges you from that position.Yes you’re closed minded. We know.I dont need to burn the book, because i am not gullible enough to get sucked in by it. That was advice tailored to you.That’s right burn books. That works. That’s real science...for dummies.Then burn that dumb book you posted.A mind is a terrible thing to waste.Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.Yes we know you’re a fool.Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.Smart people know science is never settled.
Haha, got it!
So , once again, the utter opposite of what you say is true. You're the close minded nutter, and i am the open mined, evidence based thinker.
No. You see, there was a mistranslation. The original Hebrew word "shananay" actually means, "jiffy". So it actually rained for approximately 23 seconds. Craziest thing.The account in the Bible said it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, right?
And if you knew anything about science, you would know that there is a difference between a theory and a hypothesis, in science.If you weren’t so dumb, you’d know what the word theory means.
The account in the Bible said it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, right?
Hey check out Crust Displacement THEORY but look up the definition of theory first, it might help. The THEORY goes that earths crust is displaced during a pole shift, which explains how coral reefs, rain forests, and mastodons have been found perfectly preserved at latitudes where they couldn’t have existed.And if you knew anything about science, you would know that there is a difference between a theory and a hypothesis, in science.If you weren’t so dumb, you’d know what the word theory means.
My point is it is your “scientific” explanation of the account that doesn’t match the biblical account.The account in the Bible said it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, right?
That's not all. Moses spent 40 days and 40 nights on Mount Sinai, for example. Jesus fasted for 40 days and 40 nights in the desert. The number 40 is repeated several times in the Bible. What is the significance? There may not be any significance, but its repeated several times. It refers to testing and judging you.
My point is it is your “scientific” explanation of the account that doesn’t match the biblical account.
mine does. It rained.
I did that.
Do the simple experiment. Take some chunks and freeze it.
Untrue. If you understood the science you know that there will always be some C-14 left. That is why they are called half-lives, take 1/2 away and that still leaves 1/2. Repeat forever and there will always be some tiny amountMillions of years would mean no C-14 left.
Unchanged in 3,500 years. Why do you assume they won't last another 3,500? or 350,000? or 350,000,000?You still don't get it haha. Thousands of years old favors Jesus, creation science, and me.
I seem to recall you saying something about the water that flooded the earth came from underground. Is that correct?My point is it is your “scientific” explanation of the account that doesn’t match the biblical account.
mine does. It rained.
It rained fits your wacktard theory, huh?
Does anybody know which wacktard theory of yours that the Bible has matched?
You only use the Bible when it happens to match your wacktard theories.
You have no clue about Noah's Ark or how God saved Noah and his family. What do you think about Dr. Ken Ham?
