Creationists

[Lonestar_logic]

Of course, a visit to any university library would prove you wrong. The problem that fundies cannot confront is that sciences of evolution and earth history (geology), are in direct conflict with a 6000 year old earth. The fundie has no choice but to launch into hysterical denials.

Your problem is you think we (Christians) all believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I don't know how old the earth is, nor do you or anyone else for that matter.

A Radiometric Dating Resource List

Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology - SpringerLink

As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989.

The problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.

Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

 

[Hollie]

Please provide scriptures that support your old earth beliefs. I will provide scriptures in this article that support my position.

Days or ages in Genesis 1

Please provide a meaningful way to test the biblical tales for accuracy.

Please provide a way to test the "just so" stories of evolution for accuracy. You can start by providing a scientifically testable definition for fitness. I guess I wouldn't expect you to understand these things with just a high school education.

Where did you go to College?

If you ever step foot in a university or browse through a library (you can even find links on the web), you will discover there is a wealth of informative and factual data detailing evolutionary science.

 

[Hollie]

Your problem is you think we (Christians) all believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I don't know how old the earth is, nor do you or anyone else for that matter.

A Radiometric Dating Resource List

Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology - SpringerLink

As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989.

The problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.

Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

Your sources, as expected, are from creationist websites. Can you provide peer reviewed data to support those claims?

Have you considered that the gods are playing a cruel joke on you?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html

 

[Lonestar_logic]

A Radiometric Dating Resource List

Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology - SpringerLink

As of January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada by Samuel A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams; Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16, January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years, set in 1989.

The problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.

Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

Your sources, as expected, are from creationist websites. Can you provide peer reviewed data to support those claims?

Have you considered that the gods are playing a cruel joke on you?

How Old is the Earth: Scientific Age of the Earth

The source doesn't discount the fact.

I could but you would ignore it.

And you counter with an opinion blog.

 

[Hollie]

The problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.

Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

Your sources, as expected, are from creationist websites. Can you provide peer reviewed data to support those claims?

Have you considered that the gods are playing a cruel joke on you?

How Old is the Earth: Scientific Age of the Earth

The source doesn't discount the fact.

I could but you would ignore it.

And you counter with an opinion blog.

The source doesn't discount what fact? Can you show me where "Creation Ministries" has submitted their data for peer review? No. I didn't think so.

Would you agree that "Creation Ministries" suggests a certain agenda in what they promote?

And you're incorrect that my link was to an opinion blog. If you review the link, you will see that material, data and figures are provided with references.

 

[Hollie]

Do fundies not understand that sites such as "Creation Ministries" have an about section that announces their YEC agenda?


About Us

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Your sources, as expected, are from creationist websites. Can you provide peer reviewed data to support those claims?

Have you considered that the gods are playing a cruel joke on you?

How Old is the Earth: Scientific Age of the Earth

The source doesn't discount the fact.

I could but you would ignore it.

And you counter with an opinion blog.

The source doesn't discount what fact? Can you show me where "Creation Ministries" has submitted their data for peer review? No. I didn't think so.

Would you agree that "Creation Ministries" suggests a certain agenda in what they promote?

And you're incorrect that my link was to an opinion blog. If you review the link, you will see that material, data and figures are provided with references.

The KBS Tuff controversy illustrates many of the problems with radiometric dating, but it equally illustrates that the problems are not insurmountable. The KBS Tuff (for "Kay Behrensmeyer Site," after the geologist who first described it) is a layer of redeposited volcanic ash, so it contains a mixture of older sediments, too. It is still possible to date the layer, but care must be taken to choose only the youngest rocks, else one would be dating the age of older sediments washed into the layer, not the age of the layer itself. This is what happened with the first ages reported from the tuff. In a study to test the feasibility of dating samples from the tuff, the samples were contaminated with non-juvenile components which could not be separated out, giving ages over 200 million years. It was recommended that new samples be collected from which suitable individual crystals could be separated (Fitch and Miller 1970). These new samples were dated at 2.61 +/- 0.26 million years, based on the 40Ar/39Ar dating method (Fitch and Miller 1970). Discrepancies with this date soon turned up, though. Work with animal fossils, particularly of pigs, showed that the strata in question matched younger strata in the nearby Omo Valley. In its early stages, this fossil work was imprecise enough that the 2.61 Myr date could still be justified (Maglio 1972). However, the fossils continued to point to a younger date as the quality of the work on them improved (White and Harris 1977). And in 1975, another lab, using K-Ar dating, reported dates of 1.82 and 1.60 Myr (Curtis et al. 1975). Fitch and Miller turned to an independent method to resolve the discrepancy, fission-track dating. Initial results gave an age of 2.44 +/- 0.08 Myr (Hurford et al. 1976). This fit well with the age of 2.42 Myr, which Fitch et al. (1976) recalculated from their original results. Subsequent 40Ar/39Ar measurements they took gave a scattering of ages from 0.52 +/- 0.33 to 2.6 +/- 0.3 Myr. They attributed the spread to reheating of the crystals after deposition. Paleomagnetic studies gave ambiguous results (Brock and Isaac 1974; Hillhouse et al. 1977). The weight of evidence soon began to converge on an age near 1.9 Myr, though. A study of trace elements in the minerals showed that the KBS Tuff correlates with the H2 tuff in the Shungura Formation, uncontroversially dated about 1.8 Myr (Cerling et al. 1979). The 1.60 Myr age reported by Curtis et al. (1975) was found to be an error due to a faulty balance (Drake et al. 1980). A later fission-track study which took pains to eliminate possible errors gave an age of 1.87 +/- 0.04 Myr (Gleadow 1980). Because the controversy had become quite heated, another expert, Ian McDougall, was called in to do independent dating. He came up with an age of 1.89 +/- 0.01 using K-Ar dating and 1.88 +/- 0.02 using 40Ar/39Ar dating (McDougall et al. 1980; McDougall 1981, 1985). Geological evidence and the consistency of dates derived from various sources indicates that reheating after deposition is unlikely.

This is nothing less than a complete vindication of what creationists have been saying about radiometric dating. It is also an excellent example of just how good evolutionists are at rationalizing away problems. The funny thing is that Talk Origins is clearly totally blind to how well this illustrates the truth of what creationists say about the process of radiometric dating.

Here they have dates all over the place, not only by different methods, but by the same methods. Given this, it was the fossils that led the way. In the end they came up with three dates that agreed with each other and the fossils, all of which had also given erroneous results. Simply put, what happened here is that evolutionists kept making measurements until they found results that they liked.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Do fundies not understand that sites such as "Creation Ministries" have an about section that announces their YEC agenda?


About Us

Highly qualified individuals with the credentials to back them up.

 

[Hollie]

The source doesn't discount the fact.

I could but you would ignore it.

And you counter with an opinion blog.

The source doesn't discount what fact? Can you show me where "Creation Ministries" has submitted their data for peer review? No. I didn't think so.

Would you agree that "Creation Ministries" suggests a certain agenda in what they promote?

And you're incorrect that my link was to an opinion blog. If you review the link, you will see that material, data and figures are provided with references.

The KBS Tuff controversy illustrates many of the problems with radiometric dating, but it equally illustrates that the problems are not insurmountable. The KBS Tuff (for "Kay Behrensmeyer Site," after the geologist who first described it) is a layer of redeposited volcanic ash, so it contains a mixture of older sediments, too. It is still possible to date the layer, but care must be taken to choose only the youngest rocks, else one would be dating the age of older sediments washed into the layer, not the age of the layer itself. This is what happened with the first ages reported from the tuff. In a study to test the feasibility of dating samples from the tuff, the samples were contaminated with non-juvenile components which could not be separated out, giving ages over 200 million years. It was recommended that new samples be collected from which suitable individual crystals could be separated (Fitch and Miller 1970). These new samples were dated at 2.61 +/- 0.26 million years, based on the 40Ar/39Ar dating method (Fitch and Miller 1970). Discrepancies with this date soon turned up, though. Work with animal fossils, particularly of pigs, showed that the strata in question matched younger strata in the nearby Omo Valley. In its early stages, this fossil work was imprecise enough that the 2.61 Myr date could still be justified (Maglio 1972). However, the fossils continued to point to a younger date as the quality of the work on them improved (White and Harris 1977). And in 1975, another lab, using K-Ar dating, reported dates of 1.82 and 1.60 Myr (Curtis et al. 1975). Fitch and Miller turned to an independent method to resolve the discrepancy, fission-track dating. Initial results gave an age of 2.44 +/- 0.08 Myr (Hurford et al. 1976). This fit well with the age of 2.42 Myr, which Fitch et al. (1976) recalculated from their original results. Subsequent 40Ar/39Ar measurements they took gave a scattering of ages from 0.52 +/- 0.33 to 2.6 +/- 0.3 Myr. They attributed the spread to reheating of the crystals after deposition. Paleomagnetic studies gave ambiguous results (Brock and Isaac 1974; Hillhouse et al. 1977). The weight of evidence soon began to converge on an age near 1.9 Myr, though. A study of trace elements in the minerals showed that the KBS Tuff correlates with the H2 tuff in the Shungura Formation, uncontroversially dated about 1.8 Myr (Cerling et al. 1979). The 1.60 Myr age reported by Curtis et al. (1975) was found to be an error due to a faulty balance (Drake et al. 1980). A later fission-track study which took pains to eliminate possible errors gave an age of 1.87 +/- 0.04 Myr (Gleadow 1980). Because the controversy had become quite heated, another expert, Ian McDougall, was called in to do independent dating. He came up with an age of 1.89 +/- 0.01 using K-Ar dating and 1.88 +/- 0.02 using 40Ar/39Ar dating (McDougall et al. 1980; McDougall 1981, 1985). Geological evidence and the consistency of dates derived from various sources indicates that reheating after deposition is unlikely.

This is nothing less than a complete vindication of what creationists have been saying about radiometric dating. It is also an excellent example of just how good evolutionists are at rationalizing away problems. The funny thing is that Talk Origins is clearly totally blind to how well this illustrates the truth of what creationists say about the process of radiometric dating.

Here they have dates all over the place, not only by different methods, but by the same methods. Given this, it was the fossils that led the way. In the end they came up with three dates that agreed with each other and the fossils, all of which had also given erroneous results. Simply put, what happened here is that evolutionists kept making measurements until they found results that they liked.

Do you find it at all strange that your article (from creation wiki), references Marvin Lubenow?

creation.com/marvin-lubenow Marvin Lubenow is Professor of Bible/Apologetics at Christian Heritage College in San Diego California.

I see. A professor of bible apologetics is your source?

Chuckle.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The source doesn't discount what fact? Can you show me where "Creation Ministries" has submitted their data for peer review? No. I didn't think so.

Would you agree that "Creation Ministries" suggests a certain agenda in what they promote?

And you're incorrect that my link was to an opinion blog. If you review the link, you will see that material, data and figures are provided with references.

The KBS Tuff controversy illustrates many of the problems with radiometric dating, but it equally illustrates that the problems are not insurmountable. The KBS Tuff (for "Kay Behrensmeyer Site," after the geologist who first described it) is a layer of redeposited volcanic ash, so it contains a mixture of older sediments, too. It is still possible to date the layer, but care must be taken to choose only the youngest rocks, else one would be dating the age of older sediments washed into the layer, not the age of the layer itself. This is what happened with the first ages reported from the tuff. In a study to test the feasibility of dating samples from the tuff, the samples were contaminated with non-juvenile components which could not be separated out, giving ages over 200 million years. It was recommended that new samples be collected from which suitable individual crystals could be separated (Fitch and Miller 1970). These new samples were dated at 2.61 +/- 0.26 million years, based on the 40Ar/39Ar dating method (Fitch and Miller 1970). Discrepancies with this date soon turned up, though. Work with animal fossils, particularly of pigs, showed that the strata in question matched younger strata in the nearby Omo Valley. In its early stages, this fossil work was imprecise enough that the 2.61 Myr date could still be justified (Maglio 1972). However, the fossils continued to point to a younger date as the quality of the work on them improved (White and Harris 1977). And in 1975, another lab, using K-Ar dating, reported dates of 1.82 and 1.60 Myr (Curtis et al. 1975). Fitch and Miller turned to an independent method to resolve the discrepancy, fission-track dating. Initial results gave an age of 2.44 +/- 0.08 Myr (Hurford et al. 1976). This fit well with the age of 2.42 Myr, which Fitch et al. (1976) recalculated from their original results. Subsequent 40Ar/39Ar measurements they took gave a scattering of ages from 0.52 +/- 0.33 to 2.6 +/- 0.3 Myr. They attributed the spread to reheating of the crystals after deposition. Paleomagnetic studies gave ambiguous results (Brock and Isaac 1974; Hillhouse et al. 1977). The weight of evidence soon began to converge on an age near 1.9 Myr, though. A study of trace elements in the minerals showed that the KBS Tuff correlates with the H2 tuff in the Shungura Formation, uncontroversially dated about 1.8 Myr (Cerling et al. 1979). The 1.60 Myr age reported by Curtis et al. (1975) was found to be an error due to a faulty balance (Drake et al. 1980). A later fission-track study which took pains to eliminate possible errors gave an age of 1.87 +/- 0.04 Myr (Gleadow 1980). Because the controversy had become quite heated, another expert, Ian McDougall, was called in to do independent dating. He came up with an age of 1.89 +/- 0.01 using K-Ar dating and 1.88 +/- 0.02 using 40Ar/39Ar dating (McDougall et al. 1980; McDougall 1981, 1985). Geological evidence and the consistency of dates derived from various sources indicates that reheating after deposition is unlikely.

This is nothing less than a complete vindication of what creationists have been saying about radiometric dating. It is also an excellent example of just how good evolutionists are at rationalizing away problems. The funny thing is that Talk Origins is clearly totally blind to how well this illustrates the truth of what creationists say about the process of radiometric dating.

Here they have dates all over the place, not only by different methods, but by the same methods. Given this, it was the fossils that led the way. In the end they came up with three dates that agreed with each other and the fossils, all of which had also given erroneous results. Simply put, what happened here is that evolutionists kept making measurements until they found results that they liked.

Do you find it at all strange that your article (from creation wiki), references Marvin Lubenow?

creation.com/marvin-lubenow Marvin Lubenow is Professor of Bible/Apologetics at Christian Heritage College in San Diego California.

I see. A professor of bible apologetics is your source?

Chuckle.

You are a troll with no objectivity at all.

Radiometric dating is flawed. No one knows how old rocks are.

You're dismissed.

 

[Hollie]

This is nothing less than a complete vindication of what creationists have been saying about radiometric dating. It is also an excellent example of just how good evolutionists are at rationalizing away problems. The funny thing is that Talk Origins is clearly totally blind to how well this illustrates the truth of what creationists say about the process of radiometric dating.

Here they have dates all over the place, not only by different methods, but by the same methods. Given this, it was the fossils that led the way. In the end they came up with three dates that agreed with each other and the fossils, all of which had also given erroneous results. Simply put, what happened here is that evolutionists kept making measurements until they found results that they liked.

Do you find it at all strange that your article (from creation wiki), references Marvin Lubenow?

creation.com/marvin-lubenow Marvin Lubenow is Professor of Bible/Apologetics at Christian Heritage College in San Diego California.

I see. A professor of bible apologetics is your source?

Chuckle.

You are a troll with no objectivity at all.

Radiometric dating is flawed. No one knows how old rocks are.

You're dismissed.

I was hoping you could help me understand how a professor of bible apologetics came to be a reliable source for interpretation of radiometric data?

I'm actually being objective and hoping you could provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor to authoritatively interpret the data.

Could you perhaps revise your post to affirmatively end your statement regarding " no one knows how old rocks are" with the exclamation because I say so.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Do you find it at all strange that your article (from creation wiki), references Marvin Lubenow?

creation.com/marvin-lubenow Marvin Lubenow is Professor of Bible/Apologetics at Christian Heritage College in San Diego California.

I see. A professor of bible apologetics is your source?

Chuckle.

You are a troll with no objectivity at all.

Radiometric dating is flawed. No one knows how old rocks are.

You're dismissed.

I was hoping you could help me understand how a professor of bible apologetics came to be a reliable source for interpretation of radiometric data?

I'm actually being objective and hoping you could provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor to authoritatively interpret the data.

Could you perhaps revise your post to affirmatively end your statement regarding " no one knows how old rocks are" with the exclamation because I say so.

He was not the author of "Talk Origins".

But why bother you with facts. You will simply ignore them.

After all you ignored the fact that Lubenow has a Master of Science degree with a major in anthropology.

 

[Hollie]

You are a troll with no objectivity at all.

Radiometric dating is flawed. No one knows how old rocks are.

You're dismissed.

I was hoping you could help me understand how a professor of bible apologetics came to be a reliable source for interpretation of radiometric data?

I'm actually being objective and hoping you could provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor to authoritatively interpret the data.

Could you perhaps revise your post to affirmatively end your statement regarding " no one knows how old rocks are" with the exclamation because I say so.

He was not the author of "Talk Origins".

But why bother you with facts. You will simply ignore them.

After all you ignored the fact that Lubenow has a Master of Science degree with a major in anthropology.

The gods will punish me.

In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?

Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I was hoping you could help me understand how a professor of bible apologetics came to be a reliable source for interpretation of radiometric data?

I'm actually being objective and hoping you could provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor to authoritatively interpret the data.

Could you perhaps revise your post to affirmatively end your statement regarding " no one knows how old rocks are" with the exclamation because I say so.

He was not the author of "Talk Origins".

But why bother you with facts. You will simply ignore them.

After all you ignored the fact that Lubenow has a Master of Science degree with a major in anthropology.

The gods will punish me.

In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?

Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?

I have no time to have a pissing contest with a troll.

You're dismissed......again.

 

[Hollie]

He was not the author of "Talk Origins".

But why bother you with facts. You will simply ignore them.

After all you ignored the fact that Lubenow has a Master of Science degree with a major in anthropology.

The gods will punish me.

In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?

Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?

I have no time to have a pissing contest with a troll.

You're dismissed......again.

My questions to you don't appear to be particularly difficult to understand. Peer review is a valuable process of science wherein results of experimentation can be presented to scientists in similar fields for review, falsification and/or repeatable tests.

It's just a consistent pattern where creationists refuse to publish their work for the scrutiny of peer review. If, as you suggest, the entirety of mainstream scientists have gotten the data regarding a very ancient earth so completely wrong, why would creationists have such pause not to produce their data?

 

[UltimateReality]

I can't say what the light was before the sun and moon was created but clearly he described a day as we see it. If you do not trust the bible what are your beliefs in God based on ? Why are elements still found in rocks that should have been gone in an old world view ? That is supposedly what the age of the earth is based on correct ? At the rate the moon and earth are receding that to is a problem for old earth views. If the bible was inspired by God that is the only book that provides an eyewitness to creation and the beginning. If would put text books ahead of what the bible say's in a sense what is being done ?

I disagree. This errors on that fundamentalist belief of "I'm right/You're wrong" or "I'm the only one that has the truth and you don't." I believe the Bible is ABSOLUTELY true. I am just not good with some fundamentalist interpretations of it, 6,000 year old earth being one of them. Most people can't read Genesis without preconceived notions from their parents or pastor or the current religious party line. I take the Bible at exactly what is says. Light and Dark existed because God created photons. The Bible CLEARLY states the Sun and Moon came along after several days of Creation. So how can your guy say there is no doubt these were 7 literal solar days?? Here is a guide on interpretation that might clear some things up. There are a great many denominations that don't have this grasp on interpreting the Bible. It is called Hermenutics:

How to Enjoy Bible Study - Grace to You with John MacArthur

I said it before. When you pretend Genesis was written for us in the 21st Century, you rob it of its originally meaning and power.

"You might have watched, along with some of us, in horror sometime back if you happened to be watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network, they were interviewing a guest on one of their "Talk Shows," and he was explaining the Biblical basis of his ministry of "Possibility Thinking." This is a quote, "My ministry is based entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, 'With God all things are possible.' God gave me that verse (Matthew 19:26) because I was born in 1926." Obviously, intrigued by that method of obtaining a life verse, the host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through it excitedly. "I was born in 1934," he said. "My life verse must be Matthew 19:34! What does it say?" Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only 30 verses! Undeterred, he flipped to Luke, and read Luke 19:34, and they said, "The Lord hath need of Him." Thrilled, he exclaimed, "The Lord has need of me, the Lord has need of me!" What a wonderful life verse. I never had a life verse before, but now the Lord has given me one. Thank You, 0h Jesus, Hallelujah. And the studio audience began to applaud.

At that moment, however, the "Talk Show" host's wife who had also turned to Luke 19, said, "Wait a minute, you can't use this. This verse is talking about a donkey!" That incident, while being absolutely ludicrous and bizarre, gives you some idea of the "willy-nilly way" that some Charismatics approach Scripture. Some of them, looking for a word from the Lord, play a sort of Bible roulette. They spin the Bible at random, looking for something that might seem applicable to whatever trial or need they are facing and they find a verse and say, "Well, the Lord gave me that verse." And then the Lord supposedly gave them the interpretation of it. These are silly and foolish ways to approach the study of the Bible."

Charismatic Chaos - By John MacArthur

Why are we to believe a day that we witness today was longer back then ? I believe the light that existed when God created was himself. Why is he called the light of the world does that mean just because he is truth ?

So we should ignore the chronology of man that was given by the word of God. I will respectfully disagree with you. If God can say let there be light and there was light we can interpret that as it taking a long period of time for that light to appear.

But still you are basing your views off mans assumptions the same men who say we are products of natural processes and we are all products of evolution. I still think you should watch that video I posted and go through each scripture that is brought to our attention.

The question isn't about solar days, but really your reasons why you believe that passage is meant to be taken literally and others in the Bible are not? Who has decided this for you?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The gods will punish me.

In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?

Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?

I have no time to have a pissing contest with a troll.

You're dismissed......again.

My questions to you don't appear to be particularly difficult to understand. Peer review is a valuable process of science wherein results of experimentation can be presented to scientists in similar fields for review, falsification and/or repeatable tests.

It's just a consistent pattern where creationists refuse to publish their work for the scrutiny of peer review. If, as you suggest, the entirety of mainstream scientists have gotten the data regarding a very ancient earth so completely wrong, why would creationists have such pause not to produce their data?

THIS VIDEO IS LACED WITH SARCASM (to those who have difficulty sensing it). Scientists admit that radiometric dating, one of the fundamental techniques used to show the earth is billions of years old is flawed!!!

 

[Hollie]

I have no time to have a pissing contest with a troll.

You're dismissed......again.

My questions to you don't appear to be particularly difficult to understand. Peer review is a valuable process of science wherein results of experimentation can be presented to scientists in similar fields for review, falsification and/or repeatable tests.

It's just a consistent pattern where creationists refuse to publish their work for the scrutiny of peer review. If, as you suggest, the entirety of mainstream scientists have gotten the data regarding a very ancient earth so completely wrong, why would creationists have such pause not to produce their data?

THIS VIDEO IS LACED WITH SARCASM (to those who have difficulty sensing it). Scientists admit that radiometric dating, one of the fundamental techniques used to show the earth is billions of years old is flawed!!!

I thought it was dishonest to claim that Scientists admit that radiometric dating, one of the fundamental techniques used to show the earth is billions of years old is flawed!!! when I saw no scientist admit such a thing.

 

[UltimateReality]

The gods will punish me.

In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?

Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?

I have no time to have a pissing contest with a troll.

You're dismissed......again.

My questions to you don't appear to be particularly difficult to understand. Peer review is a valuable process of science wherein results of experimentation can be presented to scientists in similar fields for review, falsification and/or repeatable tests.

It's just a consistent pattern where creationists refuse to publish their work for the scrutiny of peer review. If, as you suggest, the entirety of mainstream scientists have gotten the data regarding a very ancient earth so completely wrong, why would creationists have such pause not to produce their data?

What is difficult to understand is why you say YWC and I don't have any education background, when we have both have stated what it is, and you continue to ignore questions about where you went to college?

 

[UltimateReality]

I was hoping you could help me understand how a professor of bible apologetics came to be a reliable source for interpretation of radiometric data?

I'm actually being objective and hoping you could provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor to authoritatively interpret the data.

Could you perhaps revise your post to affirmatively end your statement regarding " no one knows how old rocks are" with the exclamation because I say so.

He was not the author of "Talk Origins".

But why bother you with facts. You will simply ignore them.

After all you ignored the fact that Lubenow has a Master of Science degree with a major in anthropology.

The gods will punish me.

In the meantime, could you provide some information regarding the qualifications of the bible professor, with a degree in anthropology, to authoritatively interpret the data?

Is there any chance the professor published his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals?

Do you really think you are in a position to question anyone else's credentials Rugged man hands??