Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Which you can't admit to yourself was created by creation scientist Sir Francis Bacon -- Sir Francis Bacon. At least, we remember our BIG scientists who created our best science unlike yours who made up radiometric dating. (I know but won't tell you lol).We don't have Perfect Knowledge and even some basic research may be dangerous; the scientific method is still our best bet, in my opinion.
So what? That knowledge came in spite of religion, not because of it. He had the same iron aged book of childish myths as every man before him had for millennia. Yet we had to wait for him.you can't admit to yourself was created by creation scientist Sir Francis Bacon -- Sir Francis Bacon.
I would say the radiometric dating of rocks is important for the atheists. I suspect they'll pay for their false beliefs in the end.
I don't follow your line of reasoning. The scientific method comes from the discovery of self-evident truths studied.Which you can't admit to yourself was created by creation scientist Sir Francis Bacon -- Sir Francis Bacon. At least, we remember our BIG scientists who created our best science unlike yours who made up radiometric dating. (I know but won't tell you lol).
So LMAO. Your guy who invented radiometric dating is long forgotten. Don't be jealous. Envy is one of the seven deadly sins.So what? That knowledge came in spite of religion, not because of it. He had the same iron aged book of childish myths as every man before him had for millennia. Yet we had to wait for him.
So...way to highlight yet another way your book of silly myths is useless, when it comes to science.
I don't follow your line of reasoning. The scientific method comes from the discovery of self-evident truths studied.
It is more objective than anything else.It's not based on atheistic lies like radiometric dating, evolution, and evolutionary thinking because no one was there to observe when billions of years old meteors were formed.
More preaching. Also this:And atheist scientists are not such as readily accepting billions of years universe and Earth from the 1950s? It's like atheists practice voodoo science with atheist evolution. They just want to contradict and disprove what the Bible said.
No guessing on the part of the creationists. It's already in the Bible and science backs up the parts of the Bible we are discussing. It came up with singularity first and the big bang, i.e. expansion of the universe, and then the atheist scientists stole it once the discovery of CMB. The atheist scientists claimed an infinite universe existed in order to not have God starting space and time and the universe, but they were freaking wrong. Now, they have to claim long time because the Bible stated cosmic expansion or big bang, i.e. there was a beginning.
Thus, it is you who are wrong once again. You have feces on your face and not egg because this has happened to the atheists over and over. The universe is not infinite. Earth didn't exist until it was created. The atheists can't even explain the energy nor the cosmic expansion unless they claim natural singularity. What bull. The Bible and the creationists stated what happened first and science has backed it up with creation singularity and the big bang.
You have gotten too emotional over this and the destruction of radiometric dating and don't know what you are talking about anymore. It really is sad and pathetic to read your posts.
Let me say it again. The reference you gave me was almost all about K-Ar dating. The contamination and dispersion problems they cover in detail are well known to scientists. Nothing new there. But you failed to give a reference that covers Rh-Os dating which has none of those problems.Lol. More lies. Creationists talk about the atheists and their evolutionary thinking all the time. We find we discuss how science backs up the Bible and then the atheist scientists steal what was discovered and try to make up stuff and an atheist version to explain the Biblical truth and science. I provided one of the biggest examples above.
As for measurements, I have been giving you what was measured and what the creationists have measured or did you just ignore radiocarbon dating? It sounds like your emotions have made you blind or deaf to what your opponent is presenting.
I don't have to guess. The excerpt about neutrinos had no basis in fact, and the authors failed to mathematically analyze it if they were serious.I can only guess the neutrinos section and article was to show the various whining and complaints of atheists when creationists point out the truthful science first.
Rh-Os dating fulfills all the reliability requirements extremely well.From the above facts it can be seen that the radiometric dating methods do not in general fulfill all of the requirements for a reliable clock.
I already gave you the link in an earlier thread and also this one. Here it is for the third time:Can you provide some links and articles where you are getting this? Am I just supposed to take your atheist word on Rh-Os dating?
Can you give me a link to that. Or maybe you really should retract it.The universe isn't billions of years old as you claim. Otherwise, our sun would have used up most of it's energy. It's still a strong sun.
I think creation science is more objective, but if you don't believe in the Bible and Christian God, then I can see how someone of the atheist religion would go with the atheist science of evolution and radiometric thinking and make assumptions for it. Where the rubber meets to road is in the hard evidence that creation science has from the Bible and science that backs it up despite the Bible not being a science book. Political views also plays a big part because most liberals are atheists today.It is more objective than anything else.
LMAO. You keep taking things out of context from creationists articles, science articles, and my posts. No wonder you are so mixed up over creation science.More preaching. Also this:
You have feces on your face and not egg because this has happened to the atheists over and over....You have gotten too emotional over this...How can you be my BFF when you say things like that. It shows you got the emotion thing backwards, ya know.
It's your claim that Rh-Os has none of those problems. Can you provide some scientific evidence that it has none of those problems? It isn't widely used. Why not? Why don't you post some other links to convince us of your Rh-Os claims. Why should I believe the statements of an atheist? At least, I provide my sources thru valid links. I'm your opposition and you expect me to know all your dirty little lies. You're sound like an atheist believer which I can understand, but also an atheist bullshitter which I can't understand. It makes you sound like a dirty atheist liar.Let me say it again. The reference you gave me was almost all about K-Ar dating. The contamination and dispersion problems they cover in detail are well known to scientists. Nothing new there. But you failed to give a reference that covers Rh-Os dating which has none of those problems.
Creationer ''science'' is neither science nor is it objective. Like all of the fundamentalist ministries, they have a single-minded goal of proselytizing not science investigation.I think creation science is more objective, but if you don't believe in the Bible and Christian God, then I can see how someone of the atheist religion would go with the atheist science of evolution and radiometric thinking and make assumptions for it. Where the rubber meets to road is in the hard evidence that creation science has from the Bible and science that backs it up despite the Bible not being a science book. Political views also plays a big part because most liberals are atheists today.
Actually, "creationer scientists" is a relatively recent slogan invented by the Christian ministries. None of the people you listed were "creationer scientists".
The scientific method is the ideal way science should be done. It's not based on atheistic lies like radiometric dating, evolution, and evolutionary thinking because no one was there to observe when billions of years old meteors were formed. OTOH God was there since the beginning of creation and told us how he did it in the Bible, his autobiography.
The greatest scientists in the history of the world have been creation scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Johan Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (invented calculus), Carolus Linnaeus, Georges Cuvier, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, James Joule, Louis Pasteur, James Maxwell, George Washington Carver, and more. Albert Einstein believed in a personal god and wasn't atheist. He wasn't exactly a creationist either. The atheist list doesn't match up. Can you name a few and their accomplishments? Who invented radiometric dating?
From my perception, all myths are based on creationism. And, if all Religion requires is faith, it is not difficult to understand why we are in Nexus Six with Zardoz and the Incorrigibles.I think creation science is more objective, but if you don't believe in the Bible and Christian God, then I can see how someone of the atheist religion would go with the atheist science of evolution and radiometric thinking and make assumptions for it. Where the rubber meets to road is in the hard evidence that creation science has from the Bible and science that backs it up despite the Bible not being a science book. Political views also plays a big part because most liberals are atheists today.
Can you give me a link to that. Or maybe you really should retract it.
Summary:
Your friends complain about dispersion in K-Ar, but don't mention it at all in C14 data. Kind of disingenuous dontya think. And your source was about K-Ar. You never gave a cogent response to Rh-Os which 1) has a long stable half life, 2) with a parent that is tightly contained, 3) a daughter isotope that is likewise contained, and 4) both are very rare and the daughter product barely exists naturally. So no contamination or dispersion.
It's creation science, Flattie Hollie. Sure, it's objective because it came first and the creator was objective and truthful. He wrote his beautiful and heartful autobiography in the Bible (life of Jesus) and we usually discuss Genesis here, but there is more that which science backs up throughout. There is likely more to find out as humankind will discover new truths in the future such as the universe has a boundary. Isn't that what real science is about? What's funny is the atheist scientists do not admit their religious science. They do not admit that it's atheist science from the get go. That's a huge and erroneous assumption and will cause pain, agony, and hurt as they willfully contradict the creator. You're butthurt any time creation science or real science is discussed here. I can only point out the truth vs the errors in s&t and am the one who presents a more balanced view.Creationer ''science'' is neither science nor is it objective. Like all of the fundamentalist ministries, they have a single-minded goal of proselytizing not science investigation.
From the AIG website:
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and bedfellow: a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).
There's nothing to misinterpret there. Science to the christian fundamentalist is an annoyance because it conflicts with fundamentalist christian notions such as a flat earth, young earth, etc.
You're just fooled by Lucifer's anti-Bible of atheist science.From my perception, all myths are based on creationism. And, if all Religion requires is faith, it is not difficult to understand why we are in Nexus Six with Zardoz and the Incorrigibles.
He was upset He had to get stuck with us in Nexus Six.You're just fooled by Lucifer's anti-Bible of atheist science.
That goes a way back and was a great flick. Do you know Fort Fun Indiana? You should hit it off on Nexus 6 and other imaginary places with your imaginary science.He was upset He had to get stuck with us in Nexus Six.
I did. It should have been clear.It's your claim that Rh-Os has none of those problems. Can you provide some scientific evidence that it has none of those problems?
You ask me to post some links; then in the next sentence you say you won't believe them. That seems sorta futile dontya think?Why don't you post some other links to convince us of your Rh-Os claims. Why should I believe the statements of an atheist?
What diamonds are is very well known. Wikipedia has a very long discussion with 161 references.I mean please explain your GIA article. It doesn't even explain what diamonds are in scientific terms.
We already know you don't believe the science because your creation web site says so. You have never shown a source that tells why YECs dismiss the fact that all measuring instruments, specifically mass spectrometers, used at their limit are dealing with noise... Never. You have wrapped yourself in a self-contradiction.I gave you atheists credit for radiometric dating, but I am finding it is erroneous from discussing it with you and going back and reading AIG and creation.com articles. Science does not back up old Earth and evolution.
Finally, I am not preaching but asking questions which you do not answer or making points you can not rebut. It's you and your side who only presents a one-sided presentation and makes atheist old Earth assumptions. Otherwise, you don't know about the Bible and how science backs it up. You make stereotypical assumptions of creationists and their scientists and act like a stuck up basturd when the Bible's answers do not fit your stereotypical views. Your side bases your science on uniformitarianism and atheism. My side bases it on catastrophism and the Bible's parts where we found science backs up the Bible. We acknowledge our opposition and makes smart comments to support our statements and disprove or rebut our opposition's scientific beliefs. Your smug atheist scientists only present one side.
Your ministries make no pretenses about what they preach.It's creation science, Flattie Hollie. Sure, it's objective because it came first and the creator was objective and truthful. He wrote his beautiful and heartful autobiography in the Bible (life of Jesus) and we usually discuss Genesis here, but there is more that which science backs up throughout. There is likely more to find out as humankind will discover new truths in the future such as the universe has a boundary. Isn't that what real science is about? What's funny is the atheist scientists do not admit their religious science. They do not admit that it's atheist science from the get go. That's a huge and erroneous assumption and will cause pain, agony, and hurt as they willfully contradict the creator. You're butthurt any time creation science or real science is discussed here. I can only point out the truth vs the errors in s&t and am the one who presents a more balanced view.
Notice, you do not even realize that your science is "religioner science" and follows what Lucifer said and did. Instead of a snake, he is talking through atheist scientists. The price for your religioner science will be high indeed. How can anyone live without the one and true most awesome God? What's evidence for this? We all die daily as that is explained in the Bible when we live without God. God is gone from our universe and lives in the original heaven.
