Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

[Andylusion]

Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets

Very cool stuff. These guys ha e really made a difference in our understanding of the universe. For a long time many doubted tbe existence of planets outside our Solar System. Some fools still do despite the preponderance of evidence. But what can you do?

The Nobel prize outside of the peace prize, is actually respectable.

I'm not sure if they really learned a ton about the universe yet... they just recently discovered it, correct?

It will likely take a long time to learn much about it. Still cool though.

 

[Wuwei]

No, 6000 years or young Earth is correct. You ignore what I say. I have evidence backed by the scientific method. I have credentials. I had to provide you with Clair Patterson and evolutionary thinking and history. You have not read the Bible and Genesis. I have read both the evolution website and the Bible. You don't and haven't. You cannot get rid of the truth based on your belief in lies. Even 3 billion years wasn't enough for evolution, so that's how Patterson became famous. Why don't you just admit you lost your argument?

Nope. You lost the argument, but you don't understand physics enough to know it.

1) There was C14 remaining in the billions of years coals and diamonds. That cannot be if it was so old. We find other contradictions in millions and billions of year old objects. How did you know the dinosaur fossil that Mary Schweitzer had was so old? 2) Gale showed there were too much primordial lead in the young meteorites that Patterson used. 3) The assumptions made by evolutionist scientists are wrong. Not the methodology. No one can observe a million years or a billion years in this life.

What is the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes when the rock or meteorite was formed? How do they date old fossils?

We went through this many times. Gale is 1972. Out dated. C14 dating on diamonds is background noise.

You have no credibility nor credentials. OTOH, I have PhD's refuting you. They are ready to test any object put forth for examination. You have no one who will provide a sample.

Now you are going off the deep end here

They have no credibility unless they show the graphs of the AMS spectrum similar to the one I showed with an obvious background.

You are coming totally unglued here. Patterson was trying to come up with something to show an Earth older than 3 billion years. Creation science is valid science because we have what is observable and the scientific method backs it up. You have nothing

. It's fake science. This is what happens when you find evidence to fit just to fit the evolution theory.

Nope, Patterson was doing a geological study, not an evolution study. It's a different field.

My point was there really isn't any machine to tell us how old we are. There will be varying dates. My other valid point was there was C14 left when there should have been none. Thus, radiocarbon dating was a valid method for trying to estimate the dating.

There was no C14 left it was background. Take another look at Snell's paper and the graph I showed.

Climate change is based on human produced CO2. What if it was the magnetic field weakening that was causing more solar radiation to enter and thus cause warming? Isn't that the greenhouse effect?

Not at all. The GHE is a resonate absorption of greenhouse gases and back-radiation in the lower troposphere.

I wouldn't deny any physics that doesn't fit the Bible, but you are talking about dating something using a machine. As I pointed out at least twice now that a machine doesn't tell you the age. It's assumptions of what the machine tells you that makes one come up with the date. I asked you how fossils were dated? Can you answer it now as it is relevant to the discussion?

Measurements of almost all physical quantities are indirect.
If you say a machine doesn't tell you the age, then......
A thermometer does not tell you temperature; it is just mercury that expanded
A thermocouple doesn't tell temperature. It is just a voltage.
A pressure gauge does not tell you pressure. It's just metal bent under force.
Your dashboard doesn't tell you speed or MPG they are just computations from a wheel sensor.
An hour glass doesn't tell time. It's just a small pile of sand.

As far as dating fossils, I already told you more than once. Look it up on a geology site. If you always get your information from a creationist site you will not get real science.

Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe. Because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out.

Balderdash. I bet you don't understand what you are typing.

This is a flaw in the old universe model. If the universe is expanding, then the far reaches of the universe would be older than the 13.7 billion years old universe. That's something for you to explain.

It's not a flaw 13.7 B light years is the distance to our event horizon. The universe can be larger.

That is the big bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe

The CMB has been measured by COBE and has non uniformity.

A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1

I'll stop here as there is more to explain. After several years, Dr. John Harnett added to this theory based on Dr. Moshe Carmeli's cosmological relativity (CSR) model of the universe.

Cosmological relativity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

I bet you didn't understand that last link. The author's hypothesis would totally screw up quantum electrodynamics in a big way. I told you before that the velocity of light is embedded in QED.

Also QCD, quantum chromodynamics is the theory that successfully covers baryon interactions. The quark field is a dynamical function of spacetime. You change space-time you change the strong force. Do that and all the stars will be screwed up.

Neither of those two links has any resemblance to observation. Creationists just can't change the laws of physics like that without unintended consequences.

.

 

[james bond]

Nope. You lost the argument, but you don't understand physics enough to know it.

I didn't lost the argument. Again, you lost the argument.

One doesn't have to understand physics to understand the evolution website and Genesis in the Bible. Not only that, I do understand physics.

You could not explain the uniform temperature of the universe and how radiometric dating of a meteor can explain an expanding universe. I'm the only one who compared both the evolution side using the Berkeley website creation reading Genesis in the Bible. You just went by your own examples which did not provide enough valid information to make your case. For example, what observations did you provide besides radiometric dating and compare it to what I provided with radiocarbon dating? Next, I provided you with Clair Peterson and knowledge about evolutionary thinking, radiometric dating, the explanation by Dr. Russel Humphries of the distant starlight problem, Dr. Moshe Carmeli's cosmology model, Dr. John Harnett's addition to Dr. Carmeli's cosmology, uniform temperature of the universe, how the 13.7 billion years old universe has expanded, entropy, and more. Did these things just go over your head? What do you think will happen when the James Webb telescope comes online and sees that the outer edge of the universe has expanded? Doesn't universal expansion go out in one direction? Evolutionary thinking is based on the Copernican Principle which believes the universe is boundless and has no center.

We went through this many times. Gale is 1972. Out dated. C14 dating on diamonds is background noise.

Gale has to do with Clair Patterson and his dating of the meteorite. Instead of just arguing about the same thing over and over, I asked you how Mary Schweitzer date her dinosaur fossil? Didn't she use radiometric dating, too? How did she know how old the dinosaur fossil was? I asked you this about three or four times now and you have not provided an answer.

Nope, Patterson was doing a geological study, not an evolution study. It's a different field.

Of course, we are discussing a geological study. What you don't know is how it is related to evolution.

In order for Patterson to become famous, he had to show the Earth was older than 3 billion years old. Evolution needed even more time. Otherwise, he would not have become famous in 1956. "In 1956 the American geologist Clair Patterson (left) announced that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved."

Prior to that, it was Arthur Holmes who used radiometric dating to estimate 1.6 to 3 billion years, but Darwin needed more long time. Holmes was the one who stated radiometric dating was the way to find the age of the Earth instead of other methods. Do you know what these other geological methods were?

...

As for the rest, we've discussed this already. Tell me again how Mary Schweitzer knew the age of the dinosaur fossil?

It's not a flaw 13.7 B light years is the distance to our event horizon. The universe can be larger.

The event horizon has to do with black holes. How do we measure the age of the universe using a black hole?

The CMB has been measured by COBE and has non uniformity.

The temperature is uniform. That can't be with the big bang theory.

"COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer, launched in 1989) was the first satellite launched to measure the CMB properties outside Earth's atmosphere. COBE established the precise blackbody character of the radiation and measured the temperature as 2.726 K, measured the earth's velocity relative to the matter that last emiited the radiation, and eventually detected anisotropies in the background at the level of 1 part in 105."

the cosmic microwave background

I bet you didn't understand that last link. The author's hypothesis would totally screw up quantum electrodynamics in a big way. I told you before that the velocity of light is embedded in QED.

Also QCD, quantum chromodynamics is the theory that successfully covers baryon interactions. The quark field is a dynamical function of spacetime. You change space-time you change the strong force. Do that and all the stars will be screwed up.

Neither of those two links has any resemblance to observation. Creationists just can't change the laws of physics like that without unintended consequences.

How does singularity not change the laws of physics? How can one have infinite temperature and infinite density in the natural and physical world? How does cosmic inflation happen? How did the Earth and solar system form? How did day and night form? Isn't that changing the laws of physics?

I bet you didn't understand that last link. The author's hypothesis would totally screw up quantum electrodynamics in a big way. I told you before that the velocity of light is embedded in QED.

Why would I post something I don't understand? Do you really want to bet something? Which author are you referring to? QED and QCD was not completed on the first day as you assume because the universe was not completed and functioning until after the sixth day. All of the parts and pieces of the universe are connected. If you think you understand physics, explain how QED and QCD happened with the big bang and evolutionary thinking? It seems you just make assumptions that the way things such as physics are understood now is the way it was back then. Please explain, how QED and QCD came about under evolution since you do not understand nor trust creation scientists?

 

[Wuwei]

One doesn't have to understand physics to understand the evolution website and Genesis in the Bible. Not only that, I do understand physics.

Your understanding of physics is naive cut and paste from creationists sites.

You could not explain the uniform temperature of the universe and how radiometric dating of a meteor can explain an expanding universe. I'm the only one who compared both the evolution side using the Berkeley website creation reading Genesis in the Bible.

What are you talking about? Radiometric dating is what is done on earth.It has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe. Are you talking about Darwinian evolution? What does that have to do with an expanding universe?

Dr. Moshe Carmeli's cosmology model

This is your reference on Carmeli. Cosmological relativity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Do you understand the math? I do. And it screws up QED and QCD totally.

Mary Schweitzer date her dinosaur fossil? Didn't she use radiometric dating, too? How did she know how old the dinosaur fossil was? I asked you this about three or four times now and you have not provided an answer.

She didn't go into detail, but she said that three different isotopes in the radiological dating were used and the all agreed to within 4%. She either used minerals that penetrated the decaying animal or minerals immediately surrounding the site.

Of course, we are discussing a geological study. What you don't know is how it is related to evolution.

In order for Patterson to become famous, he had to show the Earth was older than 3 billion years old. Evolution needed even more time. Otherwise, he would not have become famous in 1956. "In 1956 the American geologist Clair Patterson (left) announced that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved."

Prior to that, it was Arthur Holmes who used radiometric dating to estimate 1.6 to 3 billion years, but Darwin needed more long time. Holmes was the one who stated radiometric dating was the way to find the age of the Earth instead of other methods. Do you know what these other geological methods were?

In order for Patterson to become famous? Why do you think Darwin needed more time? Where do you get that stuff? It seems you read nothing but creationist sites. Try looking at what the researchers are doing and saying. Don't get it second hand from a creationist site.

The event horizon has to do with black holes. How do we measure the age of the universe using a black hole?

Wikipedia:
An event horizon is acknowledged feature of expanding universe.
Try looking at other sites than creationist sites.

The temperature is uniform. That can't be with the big bang theory.

I don't know where you got that. Try googling COBE and look at images. It's not uniform.

How does singularity not change the laws of physics? How can one have infinite temperature and infinite density in the natural and physical world? How does cosmic inflation happen? How did the Earth and solar system form? How did day and night form? Isn't that changing the laws of physics?

Go to the post I am talking about and read it. Neither the author nor I were talking about a singularity.

The big problem here is that you are losing track of what is being posted and what my posts are referring to.

Why would I post something I don't understand? Do you really want to bet something? Which author are you referring to?

Go to the third paragraph from the end of my post. It is answering your comment which has a link. That is the link you don't understand.

Please explain, how QED and QCD came about under evolution since you do not understand nor trust creation scientists?

What on earth are you talking about???? What does evolution have to do with it? Are you talking about Darwinian evolution? You need to be clearer.

You think so differently than I do that communication is close to impossible. I am beginning to think that you are simply trolling.

 

[james bond]

Your understanding of physics is naive cut and paste from creationists sites.

Aren't you the naive one? All you know is physics and don't seem to understand it in the cosmology of creation science vs. evolutionary thinking. You were so ignorant that you did not know about people believed the Earth was 1.6 to 3 billion years old before Patterson using geology and formulating radiometric dating. You have absolutely no idea who Arthur Holmes was . Again, I had to give it to you because you are narrow-minded physics worm. I have to use creationist websites you lowly worm. It's the only place where Christians can learn about creation science or real science since secular science is all BS today. Creation scientists do not all agree. You are such a worm that you cannot figure this out. I even provided you with my evolution website. Someone needs to pour salt on you in order to burn some sense into you. You are an ignorant fool, fool, fool. You probably pronounce that foo, foo, foo .

Now, why don't you crap on the atheists here who post links from wikipedia, the BIASED atheist-evolution website? I'm sick and tired of idiots who do not think creationists websites are valid science websites. Just who do you think invented modern science and cosmology? You are such a disgusting worm.

What are you talking about? Radiometric dating is what is done on earth.It has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe. Are you talking about Darwinian evolution? What does that have to do with an expanding universe?

I'm talking about the big bang and the CMB and how Hubble estimated the age of the universe. He wasn't the the first. Who was the first? I have mentioned this person several times when talking to other atheists here about creation vs. evolution. What was considered the age of the universe before this?

This is your reference on Carmeli. Cosmological relativity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Do you understand the math? I do. And it screws up QED and QCD totally.

I'm not a mind reader and do not know which author you are referring to -- the person who wrote the entry?, Dr. John Hartnett, Dr. Russell Humphries, or Dr. Moshe Carmeli. You need to be more clearer in what you state. Why don't you explain using the math on how "it screws up QED and QCD totally." Which math are you referring to? I am a computer scientist and not in physics which should give you a leg up.

Wikipedia:
An event horizon is acknowledged feature of expanding universe.
Try looking at other sites than creationist sites.

I don't buy wikipedia. Again, it is a biased website that anyone can change. Do you want me to stick "Wuwei is a worm?" in one of their physics pages? I can do that. Again, please explain how an event horizon is an acknowledge feature of expanding universe. You are such a worm that you think you can state something and everyone knows what you are talking about. You may as well be speaking Chinese. People here do not understand you mostly. They think you are a nerd.

I don't know where you got that. Try googling COBE and look at images. It's not uniform.

Why don't you? You provide little reference and expect people to understand what you are talking about.

I just crushed a nerdy, spineless worm here on USMB. Hallelujah!!!

"The first space mission specifically designed to study the cosmic microwave background (CMB) was the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), launched by NASA in 1989. Among its key discoveries were that averaged across the whole sky, the CMB shows a spectrum that conforms extremely precisely to a so-called ‘black body’ (i.e. pure thermal radiation) at a temperature of 2.73 Kelvin, but that it also shows very small temperature fluctuations on the order of 1 part in 100,000 across the sky. These findings were rewarded with the award of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics to John Mather and George Smoot."

Planck and the cosmic microwave background

Go to the post I am talking about and read it. Neither the author nor I were talking about a singularity.

The big problem here is that you are losing track of what is being posted and what my posts are referring to.

You do not even know how to use USMB properly, Wormwei. What is the post # you want me to read?

Go to the third paragraph from the end of my post. It is answering your comment which has a link. That is the link you don't understand.

. Now, you are getting to be a joke. You can't even explain things so people can understand you, Wormwei?

What on earth are you talking about???? What does evolution have to do with it? Are you talking about Darwinian evolution? You need to be clearer.

You think so differently than I do that communication is close to impossible. I am beginning to think that you are simply trolling.

Look, you are a disgusting worm, Wormwei. I have no idea of much of what you refer to because you do not provide references for your claims. You do not provide quotes to make your point. You do not discuss evolution. Most of what you presented was radiometric dating. I do not know whether you accept evolution or know much about it. English is not a very precise language. You are trying to be very precise and think I know and understand what you are talking about when you write something. You do not explain yourself very clearly. I assume it is because your native language is not English. Why don't you explain how the event horizon is related to age of the Earth?

When I said, "Please explain, how QED and QCD came about under evolution since you do not understand nor trust creation scientists?", I meant using evolutionary thinking of big bang, singularity, cosmic expansion, CMB, cosmology and the rest.

 

[Wuwei]

Good heavens james bond, you are really bitter and full of hatred.
Modern science goes against YEC in many ways. I'm just a messenger and you want to put all your science hatred on me?

Physics wasn't only invented by Christians. I can explain physics so anyone can understand it, but I found that your brain is conditioned to reject it if it doesn't agree with the Bible. If you don't want to believe basic physics from Wikipedia you will not believe it from any other non-creationist site.

Often your questions are worded with physics references or assumptions that are not decipherable. QED and QCD are highly mathematical theories that come out of decades of experiments and have nothing to do with evolution. I already covered that and other things in a previous posts, but you never remember and ask the same question over and over.

YECs are trying to remove or change critical parts of physics without understanding the consequences in other areas. They just can't say time or the speed of light or radiological half-lifes were different in the past without self-contradictions in all aspects of physics. I already explained that and gave you references, but you never remember.

My conclusion still holds: YEC and current physics are totally incompatible. Creation science is not science.

You are buried in intolerance and bitterness. Christianity fails to bring harmony and serenity to your soul.

.

 

[james bond]

Good heavens james bond, you are really bitter and full of hatred.
Modern science goes against YEC in many ways. I'm just a messenger and you want to put all your science hatred on me?

Physics wasn't only invented by Christians. I can explain physics so anyone can understand it, but I found that your brain is conditioned to reject it if it doesn't agree with the Bible. If you don't want to believe basic physics from Wikipedia you will not believe it from any other non-creationist site.

Often your questions are worded with physics references or assumptions that are not decipherable. QED and QCD are highly mathematical theories that come out of decades of experiments and have nothing to do with evolution. I already covered that and other things in a previous posts, but you never remember and ask the same question over and over.

YECs are trying to remove or change critical parts of physics without understanding the consequences in other areas. They just can't say time or the speed of light or radiological half-lifes were different in the past without self-contradictions in all aspects of physics. I already explained that and gave you references, but you never remember.

My conclusion still holds: YEC and current physics are totally incompatible. Creation science is not science.

You are buried in intolerance and bitterness. Christianity fails to bring harmony and serenity to your soul.

.

Haha. I get upset a morons who tell me I can't use creation science websites and do not understand basic science. Do I tell you you can't use secular/atheist science websites? What kind of Nazi - communist are you?

I have patiently explained how today's secular science came about through uniformitarianism and Darwinism in the 1850s from an atheist Scottish farmer, James Hutton, who taught Charles Lyell, who taught Charles Darwin. I'm also tired of having to educate you on these things because you lack education and a working brain.

Next, you quote wikipedia. That isn't a valid encyclopedia. Anyone can edit it. Do you want me to edit and put you, Wuwei Worm, in it? Besides, it is a biased and atheist encyclopedia. I don't buy any of long time and wrong assumptions of radiometric dating that you believe in. You did not know who Alfred Holmes was. You cannot even connect long time to evolution. Get a life and learn some things about basic science, moron .

 

[Wuwei]

Haha. I get upset a morons who tell me I can't use creation science websites and do not understand basic science. Do I tell you you can't use secular/atheist science websites? What kind of Nazi - communist are you?

Wow. You're turning into a regular flame thrower. Now you are mocking the Chinese. I am not oriental, but it is interesting what you think of them. You are sullying yourself with your sneering mockery of a huge population. I now understand what "love thy neighbor" means to you. What other ethnic groups do you hate? Arabs? Africans? Hispanics?

I have patiently explained how today's secular science came about through uniformitarianism and Darwinism in the 1850s from an atheist Scottish farmer, James Hutton, who taught Charles Lyell, who taught Charles Darwin. I'm also tired of having to educate you on these things because you lack education and a working brain.

As far as the history of science, it really doesn't matter who developed it. It's nice that you studied the history of one aspect of science. I'm more historically adept in the hard sciences.

Next, you quote wikipedia. That isn't a valid encyclopedia. Anyone can edit it. Do you want me to edit and put you, Wuwei Worm, in it? Besides, it is a biased and atheist encyclopedia. I don't buy any of long time and wrong assumptions of radiometric dating that you believe in. You did not know who Alfred Holmes was. You cannot even connect long time to evolution. Get a life and learn some things about basic science, moron

Sure, go ahead and edit Wiki. If you think science is atheist, you should probably avoid talking about it. I was not familiar with Alfred Holmes. I looked him up and am puzzled why you think I should have known of him and why he is important to the subject of the age of the universe and earth.

.

 

[james bond]

Wow. You're turning into a regular flame thrower. Now you are mocking the Chinese. I am not oriental, but it is interesting what you think of them. You are sullying yourself with your sneering mockery of a huge population. I now understand what "love thy neighbor" means to you. What other ethnic groups do you hate? Arabs? Africans? Hispanics?

Now, you have become idiotic. Basically, you are is a dishonest Chinese, probably Communist and a fascist. You don't have much formal education and are mostly ignorant. I tried to be nice to you because of being a non-native English speaker, but you took advantage and said I should not use creation websites. Also, said some nasty things about creation websites and their scientists. It really isn't fair when creation scientists have been systematically removed from peer reviews and getting their papers published in science journals since the 1850s. Some have lost their jobs or are afraid of losing their jobs if they speak up. Maybe 50% of the population believe in evolution today in the US. You don't know about evolution or other scientific subjects either. The worst part is you claim to know physics, but are ignorant of it, too.

As far as the history of science, it really doesn't matter who developed it. It's nice that you studied the history of one aspect of science. I'm more historically adept in the hard sciences.

Haha. Dream on. You are some country bumpkin who doesn't know basic science.

Sure, go ahead and edit Wiki. If you think science is atheist, you should probably avoid talking about it. I was not familiar with Alfred Holmes. I looked him up and am puzzled why you think I should have known of him and why he is important to the subject of the age of the universe and earth.

I'm tired of having to explain to you about the history of radiometric dating and how it led to the age of the Earth. Alfred Holmes is the scientist who led others to using radiometric dating and believe that would provide the age of the Earth. Of course, he made the wrong assumptions, too. Let's just agree to disagree and if I never speak with you again, then it will be too soon .

 

[Wuwei]

Now, you have become idiotic. Basically, you are is a dishonest Chinese, probably Communist and a fascist. You don't have much formal education and are mostly ignorant. I tried to be nice to you because of being a non-native English speaker, but you took advantage and said I should not use creation websites.

Nope. Not Chinese. Communism and Fascism destroys people. I feel sorry for the oppressed people who live with that.

It really isn't fair when creation scientists have been systematically removed from peer reviews and getting their papers published in science journals since the 1850s.

Well, apparently they agree with me.

You don't know about evolution or other scientific subjects either. The worst part is you claim to know physics, but are ignorant of it, too....
Haha. Dream on. You are some country bumpkin who doesn't know basic science.

You have absolutely no idea who I am.

I'm tired of having to explain to you about the history of radiometric dating and how it led to the age of the Earth.

For your cause I think it would be better if you learned more about the physics behind radiometric dating, and not the early history.

Alfred Holmes is the scientist who led others to using radiometric dating and believe that would provide the age of the Earth.

Actually you have no idea who Alfred Holmes is.
Google it. Is atheistic Wiki giving me false information???

Sgt. Alfred Holmes BEM (1 February 1931 - 1 January 1994) was a Gibraltarian sergeant of the Gibraltar Regiment.He was a well remembered Officer-in-Charge of the Apes who held this position, caring for the Gibraltar Barbary macaques, for over 38 years​

That is why I was puzzled when you mentioned him as being of some importance. I researched it and I think you mean Arthur Holmes. Still, there is no relevance to the science of modern radiometric dating.

Let's just agree to disagree and if I never speak with you again, then it will be too soon.

You will probably hear from me if you come back with distorted views of science in the science forum.

.

 

[james bond]

Now, you have become idiotic. Basically, you are is a dishonest Chinese, probably Communist and a fascist. You don't have much formal education and are mostly ignorant. I tried to be nice to you because of being a non-native English speaker, but you took advantage and said I should not use creation websites.

Nope. Not Chinese. Communism and Fascism destroys people. I feel sorry for the oppressed people who live with that.

It really isn't fair when creation scientists have been systematically removed from peer reviews and getting their papers published in science journals since the 1850s.

Well, apparently they agree with me.

You don't know about evolution or other scientific subjects either. The worst part is you claim to know physics, but are ignorant of it, too....
Haha. Dream on. You are some country bumpkin who doesn't know basic science.

You have absolutely no idea who I am.

I'm tired of having to explain to you about the history of radiometric dating and how it led to the age of the Earth.

For your cause I think it would be better if you learned more about the physics behind radiometric dating, and not the early history.

Alfred Holmes is the scientist who led others to using radiometric dating and believe that would provide the age of the Earth.

Actually you have no idea who Alfred Holmes is.
Google it. Is atheistic Wiki giving me false information???

Sgt. Alfred Holmes BEM (1 February 1931 - 1 January 1994) was a Gibraltarian sergeant of the Gibraltar Regiment.He was a well remembered Officer-in-Charge of the Apes who held this position, caring for the Gibraltar Barbary macaques, for over 38 years​

That is why I was puzzled when you mentioned him as being of some importance. I researched it and I think you mean Arthur Holmes. Still, there is no relevance to the science of modern radiometric dating.

Let's just agree to disagree and if I never speak with you again, then it will be too soon.

You will probably hear from me if you come back with distorted views of science in the science forum.

.

I really picture you as this boy who grew up and is now old. Your name could be Sum Ting instead of Wuwei Wong.

As I stated already, we are done. You are not an honest person and thus, there is no point in discussing physics, science, nor anything else. It's difficult enough arguing with an evolutionist, but far be it for me to have to teach someone evolution, the Bible, and creation science when they won't agree with me anyway, aren't honest, and states creation science websites are wrong and doesn't trust them, so I shouldn't use them. Not only are you full of assertions, wrong thinking, ignorance, but fascism/Communism, too.

 

[Wuwei]

I really picture you as this boy who grew up and is now old. Your name could be Sum Ting instead of Wuwei Wong.

As I stated already, we are done. You are not an honest person and thus, there is no point in discussing physics, science, nor anything else. It's difficult enough arguing with an evolutionist, but far be it for me to have to teach someone evolution, the Bible, and creation science when they won't agree with me anyway, aren't honest, and states creation science websites are wrong and doesn't trust them, so I shouldn't use them. Not only are you full of assertions, wrong thinking, ignorance, but fascism/Communism, too.

I have been honest in every statement of physics and it's applications. If you don't agree or understand it, that does not mean I am dishonest. Thank you for your patience in showing me the way creationists think. I always wondered how they rationalized that the earth age is 6000 years.

FYI I had a Christian upbringing in Detroit, with a family tree of several generations living in Indiana and ultimately Anglo Saxon ancestors in the UK. I have been practicing the 108 steps of Tai Chi for many years. It brings serenity and peace. Over 3 million other Americans currently do. My moniker made you jump to false conclusions.

It says a lot when you said “secular science is all BS today”. There are three major ideas creationists are not able to rationalize without self-contradiction.

• I asked many times, but you have never answered this self-contradiction:
  The creation scientific premise --- the universe and earth are 6000 years old.
  A creation science assertion --- C14 dating says it is 50,000 to 80,000 years.
  
  
• This is another fact unanswered by creationists.
  For isotopes with billion of years half life, there would be very little time for any decay if the earth age were 6000 yrs. Daughter isotopes ratios would be extremely small for every one of the countless thousands of assays. They aren't.
  
  
• Is the entire universe 6000 years old? Creationists have a number of ideas that are “probably” or “maybe” the answer. However all ideas require radical changes in physics that would lead to self-contradictions.

As you said..........

Ad hominem attack does not make you right and is for the losers.

It is interesting that you don't follow that. Many of your posts are full of bitterness and hatred. And now you want to leave the topic with a vindictive volley of spite. Christians should not be like that no matter what the other person is.

May you find peace and have a Merry Christmas.

.

 

[james bond]

I have been honest in every statement of physics and it's applications. If you don't agree or understand it, that does not mean I am dishonest. Thank you for your patience in showing me the way creationists think. I always wondered how they rationalized that the earth age is 6000 years.

There's no need to thank me. In fact, I have no more patience for you. If you said the things you said to me in person about not using creation websites, then we would've came to blows. I would try to hurt you with extreme prejudice. Creationists and their science have been systematically removed from secular science. Maybe we can still get published in Britannica. If they publish in wikipedia, then it would be erased. That's why I rather just let this go and you go.

No, you are not honest. If you were, then more people here would trust you. How can anyone trust a fascist and communist thinker? You are also ignorant and I do not wish to explain the things you lack. Creation scientists do not rationalize. As I said, there is no way to know the exact age of the Earth through science. Thus, we disagreed on the methods we used to estimate the age of the Earth. RATE was able to use radiocarbon dating after the atheist scientists used radiometric dating. Creation scientists also have other ways to estimate the age of the Earth as explained here -- The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth. OTOH, you do not know.

FYI I had a Christian upbringing in Detroit, with a family tree of several generations living in Indiana and ultimately Anglo Saxon ancestors in the UK. I have been practicing the 108 steps of Tai Chi for many years. It brings serenity and peace. Over 3 million other Americans currently do. My moniker made you jump to false conclusions.

It says a lot when you said “secular science is all BS today”. There are three major ideas creationists are not able to rationalize without self-contradiction.

• I asked many times, but you have never answered this self-contradiction:
  The creation scientific premise --- the universe and earth are 6000 years old.
  A creation science assertion --- C14 dating says it is 50,000 to 80,000 years.
  
  
• This is another fact unanswered by creationists.
  For isotopes with billion of years half life, there would be very little time for any decay if the earth age were 6000 yrs. Daughter isotopes ratios would be extremely small for every one of the countless thousands of assays. They aren't.
  
  
• Is the entire universe 6000 years old? Creationists have a number of ideas that are “probably” or “maybe” the answer. However all ideas require radical changes in physics that would lead to self-contradictions.

It's too late. I do not want to know anymore.

>>I asked many times, but you have never answered this self-contradiction:
The creation scientific premise --- the universe and earth are 6000 years old.
A creation science assertion --- C14 dating says it is 50,000 to 80,000 years.<<

Re-read my second paragraph.

>>This is another fact unanswered by creationists.
For isotopes with billion of years half life, there would be very little time for any decay if the earth age were 6000 yrs. Daughter isotopes ratios would be extremely small for every one of the countless thousands of assays. They aren't.<<

What does your atheist science website say? Why are they using radioisotope dating? How do they date fossils? Don't they relate it to the rock layer? You need to find your own answers about radiometric dating?

>>Is the entire universe 6000 years old? Creationists have a number of ideas that are “probably” or “maybe” the answer. However all ideas require radical changes in physics that would lead to self-contradictions.<<

You are just ignorant about physics, too haha. Probably and maybe are not the creationists answers. It shows you are ignorant about creationists and me.

It is interesting that you don't follow that. Many of your posts are full of bitterness and hatred. And now you want to leave the topic with a vindictive volley of spite. Christians should not be like that no matter what the other person is.

May you find peace and have a Merry Christmas.

I hate people who are fascists and communists and that is your disgusting attitude.

 

[Wuwei]

I have been honest in every statement of physics and it's applications. If you don't agree or understand it, that does not mean I am dishonest. Thank you for your patience in showing me the way creationists think. I always wondered how they rationalized that the earth age is 6000 years.

There's no need to thank me. In fact, I have no more patience for you. If you said the things you said to me in person about not using creation websites, then we would've came to blows. I would try to hurt you with extreme prejudice. Creationists and their science have been systematically removed from secular science. Maybe we can still get published in Britannica. If they publish in wikipedia, then it would be erased. That's why I rather just let this go and you go.

No, you are not honest. If you were, then more people here would trust you. How can anyone trust a fascist and communist thinker? You are also ignorant and I do not wish to explain the things you lack. Creation scientists do not rationalize. As I said, there is no way to know the exact age of the Earth through science. Thus, we disagreed on the methods we used to estimate the age of the Earth. RATE was able to use radiocarbon dating after the atheist scientists used radiometric dating. Creation scientists also have other ways to estimate the age of the Earth as explained here -- The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth. OTOH, you do not know.

FYI I had a Christian upbringing in Detroit, with a family tree of several generations living in Indiana and ultimately Anglo Saxon ancestors in the UK. I have been practicing the 108 steps of Tai Chi for many years. It brings serenity and peace. Over 3 million other Americans currently do. My moniker made you jump to false conclusions.

It says a lot when you said “secular science is all BS today”. There are three major ideas creationists are not able to rationalize without self-contradiction.

• I asked many times, but you have never answered this self-contradiction:
  The creation scientific premise --- the universe and earth are 6000 years old.
  A creation science assertion --- C14 dating says it is 50,000 to 80,000 years.
  
  
• This is another fact unanswered by creationists.
  For isotopes with billion of years half life, there would be very little time for any decay if the earth age were 6000 yrs. Daughter isotopes ratios would be extremely small for every one of the countless thousands of assays. They aren't.
  
  
• Is the entire universe 6000 years old? Creationists have a number of ideas that are “probably” or “maybe” the answer. However all ideas require radical changes in physics that would lead to self-contradictions.

It's too late. I do not want to know anymore.

>>I asked many times, but you have never answered this self-contradiction:
The creation scientific premise --- the universe and earth are 6000 years old.
A creation science assertion --- C14 dating says it is 50,000 to 80,000 years.<<

Re-read my second paragraph.

>>This is another fact unanswered by creationists.
For isotopes with billion of years half life, there would be very little time for any decay if the earth age were 6000 yrs. Daughter isotopes ratios would be extremely small for every one of the countless thousands of assays. They aren't.<<

What does your atheist science website say? Why are they using radioisotope dating? How do they date fossils? Don't they relate it to the rock layer? You need to find your own answers about radiometric dating?

>>Is the entire universe 6000 years old? Creationists have a number of ideas that are “probably” or “maybe” the answer. However all ideas require radical changes in physics that would lead to self-contradictions.<<

You are just ignorant about physics, too haha. Probably and maybe are not the creationists answers. It shows you are ignorant about creationists and me.

It is interesting that you don't follow that. Many of your posts are full of bitterness and hatred. And now you want to leave the topic with a vindictive volley of spite. Christians should not be like that no matter what the other person is.

May you find peace and have a Merry Christmas.

I hate people who are fascists and communists and that is your disgusting attitude.

Good heavens you are off the rails with personal insults. You have to understand that you are not aiming your verbal vitriol at just me, you are cursing at almost all of modern physics and physicists. I am only telling you what the physics is. I can't help it if physics disagrees with you and creationists. Some foreign physicists may be fascists or communists, but not me.

You should expect critique that is unpleasant to you when you bring up creationism in the Science and Technology forum. The Religion and Ethics forum would be better for promoting that.

May the New Year be one of harmony and peace for you.
.

 

[james bond]

Good heavens you are off the rails with personal insults. You have to understand that you are not aiming your verbal vitriol at just me, you are cursing at almost all of modern physics and physicists. I am only telling you what the physics is. I can't help it if physics disagrees with you and creationists. Some foreign physicists may be fascists or communists, but not me.

At least, I answered your criticisms. Maybe not to your satisfaction as you are ignorant.

Why would I aim at you? You are nothing as I've stated. You may not even be right about physics. You are ignorant about evolution and now we've discovered you know squat about Arthur Holmes -- Arthur Holmes | Earth 520: Plate Tectonics and People: Foundations of Solid Earth Science. Thus, it is frustrating to be told by a pupil that I can't use creation websites because they are wrong or there is no creation science. It really is hilarious. LMAO. That kind of comment would fit someone from China who is ignorant, fascist, and communist.

What was also irksome was you aren't honest enough to provide your background when I asked for it. It doesn't do much good when I have to assume and then be told that's not it. How can I trust you afterward? Anyway, it's not important anymore. You can be whatever personality you want on a forum.

I only post the link above about Holmes because he was wrong about radiometric dating and the age of the Earth. He also was wrong about plate tectonics. However, it does follow evolutionary thinking, so I can understand why he chose radiometric dating and became the young superstar for it. You are ignorant of these things, especially evolutionary thinking and history, so this is about as far as I can go.

What I would do if I were you is to not read stuff by Shirey. He's somebody who sounds like he's in the gem business and would be biased. He would not be able to sell diamonds for much if they were young. I think that was the only source or link you provided besides wikipedia, another biased website against creationists.

You should expect critique that is unpleasant to you when you bring up creationism in the Science and Technology forum. The Religion and Ethics forum would be better for promoting that.

May the New Year be one of harmony and peace for you.

You are also ignorant about the Bible theory and what intelligent design's Discovery Institute says about evolutionary thinking and history. It's no wonder as you are closed minded about the Bible as well as intelligent design. You probably do not know what the difference is. The only common ground DI and creation science has is we do not believe in the false science of evolution.

Again, you are an ignorant twit going off telling their teacher what to do. It is terribly insulting haha. Why don't you learn about some religion and ethics, too, in the R&E forum you ignorant, ignorant, ignorant... ignoramus.

Can I do anything more to help you to not be such an ignoramus?

 

[Wuwei]

Good heavens you are off the rails with personal insults. You have to understand that you are not aiming your verbal vitriol at just me, you are cursing at almost all of modern physics and physicists. I am only telling you what the physics is. I can't help it if physics disagrees with you and creationists. Some foreign physicists may be fascists or communists, but not me.

At least, I answered your criticisms. Maybe not to your satisfaction as you are ignorant.

Why would I aim at you? You are nothing as I've stated. You may not even be right about physics. You are ignorant about evolution and now we've discovered you know squat about Arthur Holmes -- Arthur Holmes | Earth 520: Plate Tectonics and People: Foundations of Solid Earth Science. Thus, it is frustrating to be told by a pupil that I can't use creation websites because they are wrong or there is no creation science. It really is hilarious. LMAO. That kind of comment would fit someone from China who is ignorant, fascist, and communist.

What was also irksome was you aren't honest enough to provide your background when I asked for it. It doesn't do much good when I have to assume and then be told that's not it. How can I trust you afterward? Anyway, it's not important anymore. You can be whatever personality you want on a forum.

I only post the link above about Holmes because he was wrong about radiometric dating and the age of the Earth. He also was wrong about plate tectonics. However, it does follow evolutionary thinking, so I can understand why he chose radiometric dating and became the young superstar for it. You are ignorant of these things, especially evolutionary thinking and history, so this is about as far as I can go.

What I would do if I were you is to not read stuff by Shirey. He's somebody who sounds like he's in the gem business and would be biased. He would not be able to sell diamonds for much if they were young. I think that was the only source or link you provided besides wikipedia, another biased website against creationists.

You should expect critique that is unpleasant to you when you bring up creationism in the Science and Technology forum. The Religion and Ethics forum would be better for promoting that.

May the New Year be one of harmony and peace for you.

You are also ignorant about the Bible theory and what intelligent design's Discovery Institute says about evolutionary thinking and history. It's no wonder as you are closed minded about the Bible as well as intelligent design. You probably do not know what the difference is. The only common ground DI and creation science has is we do not believe in the false science of evolution.

Again, you are an ignorant twit going off telling their teacher what to do. It is terribly insulting haha. Why don't you learn about some religion and ethics, too, in the R&E forum you ignorant, ignorant, ignorant... ignoramus.

Can I do anything more to help you to not be such an ignoramus?

Wow, I guess I really pissed you off. I didn't know you had such a hot button. But really, well known physics should not upset you that much. You should expect to get pressed from a number of people when you bring creationism to a Science forum.

Nope, never heard of Arthur Holmes. I looked him up. His notable book is over 100 years ago. Historical geology is not my major strength.

I don't use the Bible in trying to understand the nature of the universe.

It seems like you are goading me and trying to piss me off. For shame. Just turn the other cheek.

.