Evidence that universe created itself

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The definition of Objective in the medical world is >50% of people don't get ill or die.

Hahaha


what the fuck

Are you having a stroke

 

[Indeependent]

Hahaha


what the fuck

Are you having a stroke

I took a class given by someone I know who has 4 medical degrees.

You are a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I took a class given by someone I know who has 4 medical degrees

Aaaand here we go..... Did you also watch a youtube video? Heh heh

 

[james bond]

It makes the same assumptions as all sciences make: the physical laws we observe today are the same laws that existed from the beginning. If your God changed these laws in the past, radiometric dating would be useless. Fortunately there is no evidence (outside of religions) that this has happened.

What does God have to do with it? You didn't know the assumptions of 1) when the rock or meteor formed, 2) there was no contamination, and 3) whether the decay rate was consistent. It's why you still base in on the age found in 1956. You don't even know the name of the atheist scientist. He's long forgotten. The atheist scientists are comparing laboratory rates today to Earth and space rocks and still making the same assumptions. This is why they're billions of years wrong.

 

[james bond]

Not surprisingly, you can't identify any of the 'assumptions' you claim. Neither can the charlatans at AIG.

I just did, so you will get...

trying to understand any type of real science.

 

[Hollie]

What does God have to do with it? You didn't know the assumptions of 1) when the rock or meteor formed, 2) there was no contamination, and 3) whether the decay rate was consistent. It's why you still base in on the age found in 1956. You don't even know the name of the atheist scientist. He's long forgotten. The atheist scientists are comparing laboratory rates today to Earth and space rocks and still making the same assumptions. This is why they're billions of years wrong.

What a laughable joke. You stole your silly creationer 'assumptions' nonsense directly from the charlatans at AIG.

Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?

Radiometric dating cannot not prove that the earth is millions or billions of years old. The process lies heavily on three unprovable assumptions.

answersingenesis.org

 

[alang1216]

The Science of Chemistry....

Let's call out the bullshit using real life examples that you will, as a LibBot, dismiss without a thought...

Medications...
They are the result of science!
But they come with 1,000 warnings that will kill you or cause permanent disabilities.
Yep! That's science!
Because the results of Organic Chemistry are subjective.

Wrong. Chemistry, organic or otherwise, is not subjective. If you mix two chemicals together under the same circumstances, they will ALWAYS react exactly the same. Nothing subjective about it. What is confusing you is the fact that there is such variation in living being that adverse reactions to medications will happen in a very few individuals. There are unknowns in science.

 

[Indeependent]

Wrong. Chemistry, organic or otherwise, is not subjective. If you mix two chemicals together under the same circumstances, they will ALWAYS react exactly the same. Nothing subjective about it. What is confusing you is the fact that there is such variation in living being that adverse reactions to medications will happen in a very few individuals. There are unknowns in science.

La La La La La...
You are comparing chemistry in a vacuum to chemistry in an unstable environment.
Give it up.
We can't even get things to work 100% in 2021 and your ego won't let you see or hear what's right in front of your face.

 

[alang1216]

What does God have to do with it? You didn't know the assumptions of 1) when the rock or meteor formed,

That is not assumed, it is the goal of the research.

2) there was no contamination, and

It is never assumed there was no contamination of other extraneous factors, but if there is no evidence for any they cannot be considered in the calculations.

3) whether the decay rate was consistent. It's why you still base in on the age found in 1956. You don't even know the name of the atheist scientist. He's long forgotten. The atheist scientists are comparing laboratory rates today to Earth and space rocks and still making the same assumptions. This is why they're billions of years wrong.

If there is no evidence for and no reason to believe decay rates have changed why would anyone assume they did change

It appears it is you making assumptions in the absence of evidence.

 

[james bond]

What a laughable joke. You stole your silly creationer 'assumptions' nonsense directly from the charlatans at AIG.

Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?

Radiometric dating cannot not prove that the earth is millions or billions of years old. The process lies heavily on three unprovable assumptions.

answersingenesis.org

If you could read and understand what they're saying, then you would be on your way to becoming smarter. Anyway, it means MORE pain and suffering for you and realizing how stupid you were in the short time we are here. No one can understand how long one million years let alone one billion years are. We do not have anything to judge or compare it with. Evolution makes it sound like NOTHING, but it isn't.

 

[Wuwei]

You didn't know the assumptions of 1) when the rock or meteor formed

As Alang already mentioned it is the goal of the research.

2) there was no contamination

That is why zircon crystals are used in uranium/lead dating. Uranium can exist in the zircon crystal lattice. Lead is strongly rejected. So contamination is very unlikely. The daughter isotope of lead is very specific and not the most abundant in nature.

3) whether the decay rate was consistent.

The decay rate depends on very specific forces and constants in nature. If they were significantly different in the past, then all physics and astronomy would have failed. Galaxies could not exist. What AIG is proposing would ironically undermine our very existence.

.

 

[james bond]

That is not assumed, it is the goal of the research.

No, it isn't. You believe in lies. The goal of the research is to back evolution or lies backing lies. The Bible stated as much.

It is never assumed there was no contamination of other extraneous factors, but if there is no evidence for any they cannot be considered in the calculations.

Then, just admit that radiometric dating is wrong.

If there is no evidence for and no reason to believe decay rates have changed why would anyone assume they did change

It appears it is you making assumptions in the absence of evidence.

Wrong again. Why don't you check out the radioactive decay of uranium in New Mexico granite? It gives an age of 1.5 billion years. The same "uniform" decay also produced abundant helium. However, only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals.

 

[james bond]

As Alang already mentioned it is the goal of the research.

That is why zircon crystals are used in uranium/lead dating. Uranium can exist in the zircon crystal lattice. Lead is strongly rejected. So contamination is very unlikely. The daughter isotope of lead is very specific and not the most abundant in nature.

The decay rate depends on very specific forces and constants in nature. If they were significantly different in the past, then all physics and astronomy would have failed. Galaxies could not exist. What AIG is proposing would ironically undermine our very existence.

.

This is all you have -- belief in lies. I hope you aren't an atheist scientist (an accountant maybe?) because they will suffer the most and immediately. It is after judgment that you receive your final resting place.

What's interesting is I just learned the atheists and the wicked will see the righteous in a happy state, while they themselves are in torment. I thought it was the opposite.

 

[Wuwei]

This is all you have -- belief in lies. I hope you aren't an atheist scientist (an accountant maybe?) because they will suffer the most and immediately. It is after judgment that you receive your final resting place.

This is a science forum, but all you have is a bible thumping argument. Basic physics is not a lie. Radiological dating is just that: to find a date. Evolution is not a motivation for a scientist in dating the earth. You are confusing the science with YEC where evolution is exactly the issue.
.

 

[Indeependent]

This is a science forum, but all you have is a bible thumping argument. Basic physics is not a lie. Radiological dating is just that: to find a date. Evolution is not a motivation for a scientist in dating the earth. You are confusing the science with YEC where evolution is exactly the issue.
.

Basic physics is not a lie.
Basic physics outside the laboratory is a subjective estimation game.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Basic physics is not a lie.
Basic physics outside the laboratory is a subjective estimation game.

*as said by the iron age faither on his quantum mechanical device

 

[Wuwei]

Basic physics is not a lie.
Basic physics outside the laboratory is a subjective estimation game.

Basic physics like quantum mechanics and the Standard Model of particles has been verified in the lab to one part per million or trillion. That is definitely not an "estimate". Radiological physics for dating is based on quantum mechanics.

.

 

[Indeependent]

Basic physics like quantum mechanics and the Standard Model of particles has been verified in the lab to one part per million or trillion. That is definitely not an "estimate". Radiological physics for dating is based on quantum mechanics.

.

That's why medications and medical procedures only need a >50% non-lethal result.

 

[Wuwei]

That's why medications and medical procedures only need a >50% non-lethal result.

That's not relevant to this topic. But where did you get that?

.

 

[Indeependent]

That's not relevant to this topic. But where did you get that?

.

Carbon Dating is subjective.