Evidence that universe created itself

[Wuwei]

Carbon Dating is subjective.

Again, that is not relevant to the dating of the earth because it is only good to a few tens of thousand years.

 

[Indeependent]

Again, that is not relevant to the dating of the earth because it is only good to a few tens of thousand years.

I suggest you start with the OP.

 

[Hollie]

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.

I can read. That is why when reading your comments, it was obvious your comments were nothing more than what you cribbed from a crank, fundie website.

Why the need to hurl your gods at me? Do you feel better about yourself using your gods a bloody truncheon?

Understanding the time span of one million years is difficult for you because you are limited to a time span of 6,000 years. I don't have your limitations.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I suggest you start with the OP.

I suggest you thank him for correcting your idiotic mistake.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Where in the Bible do they talk about radiometric dating?

Then, just admit that radiometric dating is wrong.

Nope. Solid physics behind it and independent confirmations.

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.

I checked out the study and there was apparently a serious procedural error in that there is no distinction in the amount of Helium diffused that separates 3Helium from 4Helium. One may wonder why such a detail would matter; after all, Helium is Helium, right? Most of the 3Helium would not have been caused by decay while most-if not all-of the 4Helium would be the result of decay, so to simply state that a certain amount of Helium diffused from the rock would be inaccurately representing the facts.

 

[james bond]

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.
.

Not Bible thumping, but getting creation science FROM the Bible. I can't help it that you are incapable of doing that because of your belief in the atheism religion. Many atheists think theirs is the only science.

I don't think you know basic physics. Radiometric dating is based on false assumptions and they lead one to erroneous results. It has nothing to do with calendar dates. Why don't you admit that C14 remains in all of the rocks that we have and dino fossils still have soft tissue? To the contrary, the creation scientists use radiocarbon dating on organic fossils such as dinosaur ones.

I see you're still hung up on YEC because you thought the Bible discussed the age of the Earth. You were WRONG! Evolution and atheism are exactly the issue because they contradicts EVERYTHING in the Bible. This cannot be a coincidence. It takes intelligence behind it to do that from the sǐguǐ (devil).

 

[Indeependent]

Not Bible thumping, but getting creation science FROM the Bible. I can't help it that you are incapable of doing that because of your belief in the atheism religion. Many atheists think theirs is the only science.

I don't think you know basic physics. Radiometric dating is based on false assumptions and they lead one to erroneous results. It has nothing to do with calendar dates. Why don't you admit that C14 remains in all of the rocks that we have and dino fossils still have soft tissue? To the contrary, the creation scientists use radiocarbon dating on organic fossils such as dinosaur ones.

I see you're still hung up on YEC because you thought the Bible discussed the age of the Earth. You were WRONG! Evolution and atheism are exactly the issue because they contradicts EVERYTHING in the Bible. This cannot be a coincidence. It takes intelligence behind it to do that from the sǐguǐ (devil).

I just can't stand that atheists think everything in the universe is actually happening in a lab under perfect conditions.
WTF is wrong with these people.

 

[james bond]

Where in the Bible do they talk about radiometric dating?

The Bible doesn't talk about what Satan says, but what God stated in regards to creation taking six days in Genesis. The separation of light and darkness lead to spacetime starting and the EMS being created. The Bible discusses about changing the truth for a lie and this has to do with what happened in the 1800s with evolution and it's beliefs.

Nope. Solid physics behind it and independent confirmations.

That's not even true. I think condensed physics has to do with C14 dating only. The long time dating has problems -- More Bad News for Radiometric Dating. Thus, you have been trapped by your lies.

I checked out the study and there was apparently a serious procedural error in that there is no distinction in the amount of Helium diffused that separates 3Helium from 4Helium. One may wonder why such a detail would matter; after all, Helium is Helium, right? Most of the 3Helium would not have been caused by decay while most-if not all-of the 4Helium would be the result of decay, so to simply state that a certain amount of Helium diffused from the rock would be inaccurately representing the facts.

You should have found the decay of uranium to helium in the NM granite was not constant from the past to now.

Anyway, your link doesn't work -- https://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/helium.html.

 

[Wuwei]

Not Bible thumping, but getting creation science FROM the Bible. I can't help it that you are incapable of doing that because of your belief in the atheism religion. Many atheists think theirs is the only science.

No science in the bible. Just allegory.

Radiometric dating is based on false assumptions and they lead one to erroneous results. It has nothing to do with calendar dates. Why don't you admit that C14 remains in all of the rocks

You have not named any false assumptions. The AIG errors were shot down by many people many times. C14 may seem to be in rocks because of contamination by exposure to air, and the noise floor of the measuring instruments.

You were WRONG! Evolution and atheism are exactly the issue because they contradicts EVERYTHING in the Bible.

The bible is not an issue for a scientist. It's just an allegory.

.

 

[alang1216]

The Bible doesn't talk about what Satan says, but what God stated in regards to creation taking six days in Genesis. The separation of light and darkness lead to spacetime starting and the EMS being created. The Bible discusses about changing the truth for a lie and this has to do with what happened in the 1800s with evolution and it's beliefs.

Easy to call something the 'truth' or a 'lie' when you don't have to prove either. Your book just tells you so.

That's not even true. I think condensed physics has to do with C14 dating only. The long time dating has problems -- More Bad News for Radiometric Dating. Thus, you have been trapped by your lies

Sorry but I don't buy creationist clocks and I'm not the only one.

You should have found the decay of uranium to helium in the NM granite was not constant from the past to now.

Anyway, your link doesn't work -- https://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/helium.html.

Sorry, it is http, not https:
The Age of the Earth - Helium Diffusion as a Creationist Clock: Michael Ward

 

[james bond]

No science in the bible. Just allegory.

You have not named any false assumptions. The AIG errors were shot down by many people many times. C14 may seem to be in rocks because of contamination by exposure to air, and the noise floor of the measuring instruments.

The bible is not an issue for a scientist. It's just an allegory.

.

I've said it many times and provided the evidence. Science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book. However, your atheism won't let you believe it since the ancient Greeks and later the Darwin days. You should look up Balaam’s ass.

The long time evolved into radiometric dating in 1956 and creationists responded by giving evidence for a young Earth. It was the atheists who needed billions of years old universe and Earth which you were tricked into believing the opposite.

 

[james bond]

Easy to call something the 'truth' or a 'lie' when you don't have to prove either. Your book just tells you so.

Our faith and the Bible guides us, but we find out the truth for ourselves. However, the atheists don't do that. They just follow what the ancient Greeks, Darwin's buddies, Darwin, atheist scientists and whatever tells them.

As for your links, they do not work.

 

[Wuwei]

The long time evolved into radiometric dating in 1956 and creationists responded by giving evidence for a young Earth. It was the atheists who needed billions of years old universe and Earth which you were tricked into believing the opposite.

1956? You are living in the past. Todays physicists are simply not interested in YEC and are not "tricked" by the well established results of radiology. The ancient stars and galaxies also show billions of years of existence in the universe.
.

 

[james bond]

1956? You are living in the past. Todays physicists are simply not interested in YEC and are not "tricked" by the well established results of radiology. The ancient stars and galaxies also show billions of years of existence in the universe.
.

Your reply just goes to show how hung up you are with creation scientists replying to OE evolutionists with YEC. It's your side who uses radiometric dating from 1956. Do I need to provide the link so you'll be embarrassed in front of all these people? You don't know anything about what atheist scientists believe which is typical of the atheists who post here. What a joke !

From wikipedia:
"An age of 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by Clair Cameron Patterson using uranium–lead isotope dating (specifically lead–lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956."

 

[Hollie]

Your reply just goes to show how hung up you are with creation scientists replying to OE evolutionists with YEC. It's your side who uses radiometric dating from 1956. Do I need to provide the link so you'll be embarrassed in front of all these people? You don't know anything about what atheist scientists believe which is typical of the atheists who post here. What a joke !

From wikipedia:
"An age of 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by Clair Cameron Patterson using uranium–lead isotope dating (specifically lead–lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956."

ID'iot creationers get their science information from wiki and AIG, because it relieves them of any requirement to be accurate and correct.

 

[Wuwei]

Your reply just goes to show how hung up you are with creation scientists replying to OE evolutionists with YEC. It's your side who uses radiometric dating from 1956. Do I need to provide the link so you'll be embarrassed in front of all these people? You don't know anything about what atheist scientists believe which is typical of the atheists who post here. What a joke !

From wikipedia:
"An age of 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by Clair Cameron Patterson using uranium–lead isotope dating (specifically lead–lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956."

My response was a sort of "so what?" post. I have no idea why you think I should be embarrassed. That should embarrass you and all YECs. I have seen that site over a ago. Yes, Patterson was first and should be lauded for his work. The phrase "very close to today's accepted age" refers to the fact that the dating was repeated many times using different radiological methods on different substances. You have mentioned Patterson many times I don't understand why you are so obsessed with that early 1956 work. Everyone who has had some education is aware that the earth is around 4 and a half billion years old.
Again. So what about Patterson?
.

 

[james bond]

ID'iot creationers get their science information from wiki and AIG, because it relieves them of any requirement to be accurate and correct.

Which means you and the atheists lose as you all believe in lies. I even found the name of the forgotten guy (he'll be soon forgotten tomorrow).

AIG tells the truth and provides creation science which annoys you to no end, i.e. forever.

 

[james bond]

My response was a sort of "so what?" post. I have no idea why you think I should be embarrassed. That should embarrass you and all YECs. I have seen that site over a ago. Yes, Patterson was first and should be lauded for his work. The phrase "very close to today's accepted age" refers to the fact that the dating was repeated many times using different radiological methods on different substances. You have mentioned Patterson many times I don't understand why you are so obsessed with that early 1956 work. Everyone who has had some education is aware that the earth is around 4 and a half billion years old.
Again. So what about Patterson?
.

I'm not the one obsessed with an "old" Earth. It's you. For punishment, you'll prolly get to see what happens to an Earth that becomes so old in the afterlife. It could explode, become unlivable, or worse.

 

[Wuwei]

I'm not the one obsessed with an "old" Earth. It's you. For punishment, you'll prolly get to see what happens to an Earth that becomes so old in the afterlife. It could explode, become unlivable, or worse.

Bible thumper, again why are you so obsessed with Patterson? You keep bringing him up.
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I just can't stand that atheists think everything in the universe is actually happening in a lab under perfect conditions.

As if that has any effect on the half life of isotopes. Face it, you just don't know what you are talking about. You never have. You know nothing about physics, radiometric dating, radiation, chemistry, or anything science-related at all. So you sit there and cackle and point at all the "nerds", because they make you feel stupid.