Scientists Suggest That The Universe Knew

[james bond]

Of course scientists especially geologists and astronomers are interested in the timing of events and the age of the universe. That is an important part of science. What is your point?

The point is you accused the creationists as being the ones who cared. It was the other way around and now you are finally admitting it. The creationists only brought up the age of the Earth to disprove evolution, i.e. no long time, no evolution. (They also found C14 dating on organic material by creation scientist Willard Libby.) The false belief of long time is now required for atheist science. It started with uniformitarianism by the atheists James Hutton and handed down to Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin. It eventually made its way to you.

I'll get to your other points later.

 

[james bond]

No one is claiming the bible may not have any anecdotal evidence.

However, evolution seems more "intelligently" designed.

Far more than that. It provides the exact details and we find that science backs it up. The irony of you calling evolution "intelligently" designed lmao.

 

[james bond]

That is a funny way of putting it.

Figures. Both of you mistaking Christianity with Islam. It's the aroma of atheism seeping into your brains and turning it to something worse than mush.

 

[danielpalos]

Far more than that. It provides the exact details and we find that science backs it up. The irony of you calling evolution "intelligently" designed lmao.

After millions of years of "trial and error"?

 

[Wuwei]

The point is you accused the creationists as being the ones who cared. It was the other way around and now you are finally admitting it. The creationists only brought up the age of the Earth to disprove evolution, i.e. no long time, no evolution. (They also found C14 dating on organic material by creation scientist Willard Libby.) The false belief of long time is now required for atheist science. It started with uniformitarianism by the atheists James Hutton and handed down to Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin. It eventually made its way to you.

I'll get to your other points later.

This is full of misinformation and trivia.

 

[Wuwei]

Figures. Both of you mistaking Christianity with Islam. It's the aroma of atheism seeping into your brains and turning it to something worse than mush.

Cmon. It was a joke, and yes an insult - much milder and more clever than the plethora of insults you make.

 

[james bond]

After millions of years of "trial and error"?

One can't have that many errors or else they die or get laughed off science.

What trial and errors have happened in 2021? Still no abiogenesis, no aliens, nor radiometric decay adding up to half of 2021+. We still don't know who invented radiometric dating?

 

[james bond]

This is full of misinformation and trivia.

Not I. It's you Wong Way.

 

[danielpalos]

One can't have that many errors or else they die or get laughed off science.

What trial and errors have happened in 2021? Still no abiogenesis, no aliens, nor radiometric decay adding up to half of 2021+. We still don't know who invented radiometric dating?

The Miller-Urey experiment discovered some results after only a week.

 

[james bond]

The point is that the reference I gave concerning Rh-Os unequivocally gives a date of the earth that at least in the billions of years.

See, you avoided my questions once more. Moreover, most creation scientists do not care about the age of the Earth based on diamonds. It's not unequivocal by a long shot. The dates are way overstated. You even admitted radiometric date is not equivalent to calendar date. What good is trusting an atheist to do science?

 

[james bond]

The Miller-Urey experiment discovered some results after only a week.

In 2021? LMAO.

 

[danielpalos]

In 2021? LMAO.

lol. We have quantum supremacy now; I wonder what they could discover now.

 

[Wuwei]

See, you avoided my questions once more. Moreover, most creation scientists do not care about the age of the Earth based on diamonds. It's not unequivocal by a long shot. The dates are way overstated. You even admitted radiometric date is not equivalent to calendar date. What good is trusting an atheist to do science?

Re: C14. You asked What do you know? That's ambiguous. You want me to write an essay on C14 dating?
Or are you referring to this question?

Instead, I now know more about Rh-Os dating which doesn't mean much for creation scientists. How would it apply to them?​

I told you many times the significance of the Rh-Os dating.

.

 

[james bond]

Re: C14. You asked What do you know? That's ambiguous. You want me to write an essay on C14 dating?
Or are you referring to this question?

Instead, I now know more about Rh-Os dating which doesn't mean much for creation scientists. How would it apply to them?​

I told you many times the significance of the Rh-Os dating.

.

Rh-Os dating only in terms of atheist science. I told you that it and radiometric dating was discarded by creation scientists. This is why you buy radiometric dating while I know it's a lie. You even thought the creation scientists care about a young Earth when age of Earth isn't mentioned in the Bible. You thought you had a rebuttal to YEC when it was the other way around. That was very telling. It's why you have become Wong Way embracing radiometric dating and Rh-Os decay as an argument when nobody cares. You don't even know who created radiometric dating.

No need for you to explain C14 dating when it was used to date dinosaur fossils by the creationists. It shows that atheist science ignores creation science while creation scientists know about atheist science and can rebut it as fake.

 

[james bond]

lol. We have quantum supremacy now; I wonder what they could discover now.

Eh, you mean quantum mechanics or quantum physics? Creation already has it covered. It shows God's supremacy.

 

[Wuwei]

Rh-Os dating only in terms of atheist science. I told you that it and radiometric dating was discarded by creation scientists. This is why you buy radiometric dating while I know it's a lie. You even thought the creation scientists care about a young Earth when age of Earth isn't mentioned in the Bible. You thought you had a rebuttal to YEC when it was the other way around. That was very telling. It's why you have become Wong Way embracing radiometric dating and Rh-Os decay as an argument when nobody cares. You don't even know who created radiometric dating.

No need for you to explain C14 dating when it was used to date dinosaur fossils by the creationists. It shows that atheist science ignores creation science while creation scientists know about atheist science and can rebut it as fake.

This post is weird and self-contradictory.

You claim radiometric dating is a lie, however you cling to inappropriate use of C14 dating.

Now you say creationists don't care about young Earth, when a few thousand years age was emphasized because Biblical scholars analyzed the time-line in the Genesis.

You say nobody cares about radiometric dating. By "nobody" you mean creationists. Geologists certainly care.

Yes science ignores creation science because creation science rejects science and substitutes Biblical gut feel in place of evidence.

So the bottom line is that you come to this science forum to tell us that science is fake. It is no wonder that you get so much flak in this forum.

Look, I have no quarrel with you believing in creationism. My aunt and sister-in-law are creationists, but we get along fine. The fact that we have different philosophies never comes up. But when you try to mix religion and science with your vile temper, it just doesn't work. In my mind you are just debasing your Christianity.

.

 

[james bond]

This post is weird and self-contradictory.

You claim radiometric dating is a lie, however you cling to inappropriate use of C14 dating.

Now you say creationists don't care about young Earth, when a few thousand years age was emphasized because Biblical scholars analyzed the time-line in the Genesis.

You say nobody cares about radiometric dating. By "nobody" you mean creationists. Geologists certainly care.

Yes science ignores creation science because creation science rejects science and substitutes Biblical gut feel in place of evidence.

So the bottom line is that you come to this science forum to tell us that science is fake. It is no wonder that you get so much flak in this forum.

Look, I have no quarrel with you believing in creationism. My aunt and sister-in-law are creationists, but we get along fine. The fact that we have different philosophies never comes up. But when you try to mix religion and science with your vile temper, it just doesn't work. In my mind you are just debasing your Christianity.

.

It's radiocarbon dating. Not radiometric dating. We're basically comparing the materials it is used on of organic vs inorganic. Both give radioactive ages and not calendar ages, We agreed on that.

I don't think anyone is arguing C14 dating backs up the Bible or Biblical age of the Earth which still seems what you are hung up on. C14 dating could give 50, 000 years upper limit. Wouldn't you think God would've provided an exact age if that was important? Instead, all we can do is get a range of dates for organic items. I suppose it can be used for inorganic items if C14 remains, but it won't be as consistent due to contamination.

OTOH, your radiometric dating claims 13.7 billion and 4.5 billion years old universe and Earth respectively since 1956. You provide a different parent and daughter element to provide accuracy versus the criticisms. It's your side that wants to show long time calendar age and that is where the error comes in. they're not the same and makes the dating irrelevant. Radiometric dates are not even relevant to actual calendar dates. Dating of items of known age using those methods show the error in the dating.

You geologists should care about radiometric age if that's what is important. Not claims of billions of years of calendar dating. I provided the evidence that dating of same items or items from a particular layer are eliminated if they do not match the age of the layer.

I come to the science forum to use and present creation science to counter the self-serving purpose and lying claims of atheist science such as the existance of long time to back up evolution. It's misleading when calendar ages are claimed.

Even if you claim you have no quarrel with creationism, you still tried to disprove a young Earth with your radiometric date. I just wanted to show that the radiometric date has little to do with calendar date. Why? Because of the assumptions made, contamination, and little correlation shown. If they were used on dating of know age rocks and meteors, then it would give a wide range of radiometric ages. I exposed your RADIOMETRIC dates from 1956 and am the one who know the name of the person who created radiometric dating in 1956. Certainly, not anyone worthwhile like Dr. Willard Libby who created radiocarbon dating or else he would be better remembered.

It was used on dino fossils to show dinosaurs lived with humans. It was used to show how radiocarbon age to counter the long time of radiometric age as how could C14 still have remained if over 50 K years. It's no wonder you and your side purposely avoid the C14 argument.

 

[james bond]

lol. We have quantum supremacy now; I wonder what they could discover now.

Multiverses anyone?

 

[james bond]

Speaking of multiverses, what about Stephen Hawking, atheist scientist? Anyone remember him? What is he remembered for? Being an atheist haha?

 

[Wuwei]

Both give radioactive ages and not calendar ages

When done carefully both give a calendar age that is equal to the results of the isotope assay.

I don't think anyone is arguing C14 dating backs up the Bible or Biblical age of the Earth

Good.

Radiometric dates are not even relevant to actual calendar dates.

Long lived isotope dating provides the calendar age.

It was used on dino fossils to show dinosaurs lived with humans.

Patently not true. Creationists mistook noise for signal.

It's no wonder you and your side purposely avoid the C14 argument.

There is no worthwhile argument to avoid.

.