The great age of some of the Biblical characters

[SA Huguenot]

Tell you what,
This is what I saw was the problems with attempting to date rock samples with radio decay.
Age of the earth - creation.com

There are numerous such examples, and Creation research got a team of the best scientists to investigate the dating tecniques and their publications was what made me realise that mainstream science are bias on their tests and claims.
I on the other hand do not care what they say about the age of a rock.
I know it is old, perhaps billions of years old.
All that science does is to prove my point that they are dating molequles that was on this Earth a very long time ago.
It does not show that the Bible is wrong.
But, If it comes to telling me that a certain life form is older than 6 000 years+- 1000 or so, then I would like the sample and references.
But, so far, only C14 could do that, and I use C14 as evidence that life is less than 6000 years.

 

[sooda]

You sure did not check very hard.


The religious mindset is well illustrated by blind
acceptance of this ridiculous idea.

I kind of like it though, as it so completely destroys
the any credibility that such a person may have in
other matters.

Do not attempt any position of responsibility
in life that requires due diligence, being a fiduciary.
It will be a disaster.

He's Church of Christ, They take pride in stupidity.

 

[Audie]

He's Church of Christ, They take pride in stupidity.

Can't you get anything right???

"ChurchaChrist"

 

[sooda]

/

Tell you what,
This is what I saw was the problems with attempting to date rock samples with radio decay.
Age of the earth - creation.com

There are numerous such examples, and Creation research got a team of the best scientists to investigate the dating tecniques and their publications was what made me realise that mainstream science are bias on their tests and claims.
I on the other hand do not care what they say about the age of a rock.
I know it is old, perhaps billions of years old.
All that science does is to prove my point that they are dating molequles that was on this Earth a very long time ago.
It does not show that the Bible is wrong.
But, If it comes to telling me that a certain life form is older than 6 000 years+- 1000 or so, then I would like the sample and references.
But, so far, only C14 could do that, and I use C14 as evidence that life is less than 6000 years.

 

[Audie]

/

Ok, I take it back. It is someone else
who absolutely cannot get anything right!

 

[sooda]

/

dating rocks is not th e only way to state anything. I an surprised that ever the creationists are that stupid.

 

[Audie]

dating rocks is not th e only way to state anything. I an surprised that ever the creationists are that stupid.

Well, our hero is very typical of a class of poster
who tank up with a full load of creosite bs,
then, fired with the certainty that GAWD is on their
side and they cannot be wrong about anything,
they charge forth.

Possibly some or most of them are practicing their
technique when preaching to a room of sycophant
rubes. And, of course, after however long they
stay here or elsewhere, they will never have
conceded the tiniest error, but will go back
to Creoland, to brag about how they argued a
whole roomfull of atheist evo scoffers to a
standstill.

It would be funny in a gruesome sort of way, to
see one such have to present some aspect of
their story in the setting of a thesis defense.

 

[sooda]

Thanks for the critisizm.
How do they date sea fossils?
With the age of the rock.
How do they date the rock?
With the index fossils in the rock.
How do they date the index fossils? with the rock, with the fossil, with the rock with.....
On Walt Brown my reply is that I refered to his theory, which may or may not be correct. It still remains a theory.
One that fits in with the Nebular theory much better than the Hadean theory. As a matter of fact, the hadean theory was proven incorrect with the evidence of Silver ions and Zircon crystals that proved the earth was very wet in its conception.
The Bible say...the spirit hovered above the waters.

Anyhow, I opened another thread where I will discuss the relation between what the Bible say, and what science say.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

The flood lasted four days.. The water was spring snowmelt and heavy spring rains. Even Bronze age people could figure that one out.

 

[sooda]

Well, our hero is very typical of a class of poster
who tank up with a full load of creosite bs,
then, fired with the certainty that GAWD is on their
side and they cannot be wrong about anything,
they charge forth.

Possibly some or most of them are practicing their
technique when preaching to a room of sycophant
rubes. And, of course, after however long they
stay here or elsewhere, they will never have
conceded the tiniest error, but will go back
to Creoland, to brag about how they argued a
whole roomfull of atheist evo scoffers to a
standstill.

It would be funny in a gruesome sort of way, to
see one such have to present some aspect of
their story in the setting of a thesis defense.

He's either a fool or a retard.

 

[Audie]

He's either a fool or a retard.

Now now, "retard" is not very pc.

Anyway, "either-or" is the binary thinking of a fundy.

I expect a number of these characters are
clear eyed cynics, who find ways to exploit
the actual fundies with their anti evo lectures.

Then to some otherwise intelligent people
have been so affected by their childhood-
essentially like a trauma-that they cannot
break away.

My fav example would be Dr K Wise, who
trained as a paleontologist, but who is a yec
because of childhood indoctrination.

I dont think that is being a fool. I dont know
what to call it.

 

[Audie]

The flood lasted four days.. The water was spring snowmelt and heavy spring rains. Even Bronze age people could figure that one out.

If you ignore it, it will go away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you should not just discard anything Creationists say.
Look at your solid evidence on dating something with the use of volcanic ash.
There are so many examples of volcanic eruptions, again even mt St Helens, where the layering gives dates in excess of 10 000 years.
and we know it can not even be 50 years old.

No, it does not. In fact that was an example of you being lied to. The creationist that ran that text knew what he was doing wrong. He was clearly lying. He did whole rock dating of a violent volcanic deposit. Those not only have new lava in them. They also have older rock in them. If you understood how radiometric dating worked you would understand how just a little old rock will greatly throw off the date of a while new rock. Also your date is off the lying creationist got a variety of dates and the oldest was 350,00 years, not the million. Right there he failed since the company he went his samples to said they cannot accurately date samples less than two million years old.

You can read more here:

CD013.1: K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell you what,
This is what I saw was the problems with attempting to date rock samples with radio decay.
Age of the earth - creation.com

There are numerous such examples, and Creation research got a team of the best scientists to investigate the dating tecniques and their publications was what made me realise that mainstream science are bias on their tests and claims.
I on the other hand do not care what they say about the age of a rock.
I know it is old, perhaps billions of years old.
All that science does is to prove my point that they are dating molequles that was on this Earth a very long time ago.
It does not show that the Bible is wrong.
But, If it comes to telling me that a certain life form is older than 6 000 years+- 1000 or so, then I would like the sample and references.
But, so far, only C14 could do that, and I use C14 as evidence that life is less than 6000 years.

All of those are PRATT's, Points Refuted A Thousand Times. Your source also requires its workers to swear not to use the scientific method, making them worthless for science debate.

Tell me, why do you hate that fact that you are an ape?