I couldn't find this graph when searching yesterday.
You can't of looked very hard - it's labelled "figure 9" - that's why I said it was figure 9. Do you need me to tell you how to search a web page for the text "figure 9"?
But tree rings have no meaning unless we know what nature they were grown in.
Stalagmites involve chemical reactions so obviously that depends on what nature they form in! You assume a same nature and date old accordingly, and then cheer when imaginary old dates seem to coalesce inside your religious head.
For goodness sake
pay some attention! Perhaps you need to brush up on reading English for comprehension before we even get to the science. I
keep on saying that
I know that all our measurements depend on the same nature -
that's not the point.
Speaking of nonsense, give an example where all these come together for dating harmony?
I've given you lots of examples - the details are in the article - or you could go look them up for yourself - or you could even take a moment to
think about it - wouldn't that make a change? Even with your limited knowledge of science you must have grasped that the age of the Earth and universe is calculated in many different ways that that they agree - surely? Your problem is to explain why without collapsing into Last Thursdayism.
The issue seems to be that you are unable or unwilling to even see the problem.
The science is detailed, and if you won't accept simple summaries, all the details can't be spoon fed to somebody who isn't really interested on a message board - you have to take some time, be prepared to read details, and pay some attention - all things you have shown no inclination to do.
Forget anyone's assumptions or beliefs, just prove your belief of a same state past!
Forget everyone's beliefs and prove my belief - seriously? Science doesn't do proof - but the (copious)
evidence is in the way all the different ways of measuring age agree with each other.
You can't, so it remains NOT science.
Asking for proof (which science never does) then claiming that I can't give proof shows that it's not science, just underlines your ignorance.
That the so called singularity existed and that a little speck of hot plasma soup... or whatever you like to call your imaginary friend... existed and were responsible for the universe. Since then science claims the same nature or laws. That is nature basically being responsible for creation. You stand corrected and exposed as a false accuser.
Wow - I'll add cosmology to the list of sciences you know nothing about. If there was a singularity (which is highly questionable), did it exist and was it obeying the laws of nature? Yes, so it wasn't nature creating itself, was it?
That is why origins sciences are religion.
Except you don't have to believe to see the evidence that science has to offer (you are bearing false witness again). You do, however, need to take your fingers out of your ears, stop stamping your little foot really, really hard, stop screaming "It's religion!, It's all assumptions!" at the top of your voice, and stop refusing to look...
