I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Arthur Brain]

So since you cannot handle the content of my posts you have to nitpick about that? Figures...

"Content?" More like assertion without substance. The age of the universe isn't gauged on "assumption" and the methods used to determine it is hardly "multiple guesswork" either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

 

[Right Divider]

"Content?" More like assertion without substance. The age of the universe isn't gauged on "assumption" and the methods used to determine it is hardly "multiple guesswork" either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Yes, they use ASSUMPTIONS.

Did you even read the article you posted?

Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating is a technique which is used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed. The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay.^[1]
​

Those are ASSUMPTIONS.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, they use ASSUMPTIONS.

Did you even read the article you posted?

Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating is a technique which is used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed. The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay.^[1]
​

Those are ASSUMPTIONS.

I read the whole thing and if you think the result of the abundance of methods is mere "assumption" where it comes to the age of the universe then you wouldn't be objective about this no matter what. There may not be an absolute figure as to exactly how old the universe is but it's obviously billions of years old.

 

[7djengo7]

I read the whole thing and if you think the result of the abundance of methods is mere "assumption" where it comes to the age of the universe then you wouldn't be objective about this no matter what. There may not be an absolute figure as to exactly how old the universe is but it's obviously billions of years old.

All you mean by "objective," here, is "believing that the universe is obviously billions of years old."

 

[6days]

if you think the result of the abundance of methods is mere "assumption" where it comes to the age of the universe then you wouldn't be objective about this

I am curious.. what dating method of the universe would you say is not based on an assumption? I am thinking that no matter what age you think the universe is, you interpret evidence based on certain assumptions. For example... I may think that the daughter elements were part of the original creation. You may assume that there is only natural causes, and that there was no daughter elements in the beginning.

 

[7djengo7]

Says the guy who continually refers to himself in the plural. Real mature...

But not only to Right Divider, himself, when he says, "It's amusing to us when you don't discuss issues but just start childishly ranting," as you'll easily find out by looking at the foot of his post:

7djengo7 (Today),JudgeRightly (Yesterday),ok doser (Yesterday),Right Divider (Today),Stripe (Today)

Besides, while pretending to think and speak for yourself, you continually stonewall against specific questions asked of you by trying to outsource your burden of answering them onto wikipedia. What's super silly is you continually referring to wikipedia by the first person, singular pronoun, "I".

EDIT: Oops, I copied/pasted the footer to the wrong post--seeing as it would not have been possible for Right Divider to "Thank" one of his own posts. Here's the one I meant to copy:

7djengo7 (Today),JudgeRightly (Yesterday),ok doser (Yesterday)

Note: I suppose that the fewer names listed in this one (vs. the one I originally pasted into this post, above) mean that Arthur Brain now has to slightly downgrade his charge of "appeal to popularity" (see post #447).

 

[Arthur Brain]

But not only to Right Divider, himself, when he says, "It's amusing to us when you don't discuss issues but just start childishly ranting," as you'll easily find out by looking at the foot of his post:

7djengo7 (Today),JudgeRightly (Yesterday),ok doser (Yesterday),Right Divider (Today),Stripe (Today)

Besides, while pretending to think and speak for yourself, you continually stonewall against specific questions asked of you by trying to outsource your burden of answering them onto wikipedia. What's super silly is you continually referring to wikipedia by the first person, singular pronoun, "I".

Oh, such illustrious company...

Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy don't cha know?

 

[7djengo7]

Oh, such illustrious company...

Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy don't cha know?

You consider pointing out that somebody was referring to more than one person by means of a plural pronoun to be an "appeal to popularity"??

Just about every thing you, Arthur Brain, say on TOL is illogical, and fallacy, don't cha know?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You consider pointing out that somebody was referring to more than one person by means of a plural pronoun to be an "appeal to popularity"??

Just about every thing you, Arthur Brain, say on TOL is illogical, and fallacy, don't cha know?

That's certainly what you were doing, not that I expect you to be honest enough to admit it.

However, you are also one of the most sensible posters with a keen intellect that I've engaged with.

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

EDIT: Oops, I copied/pasted the footer to the wrong post--seeing as it would not have been possible for Right Divider to "Thank" one of his own posts. Here's the one I meant to copy:

7djengo7 (Today),JudgeRightly (Yesterday),ok doser (Yesterday)

Fixed.

 

[7djengo7]

That's certainly what you were doing, not that I expect you to be honest enough to admit it.

However, you are also one of the most sensible posters with a keen intellect that I've engaged with.

:e4e:

Well, thank you, sir. I aim not to bore, at the very least.

Your tenacity at being in error has been a little annoying, but I can definitely congratulate you that, to the best of my recollection, you've been really quite polite and inoffensive with me, and far from a snot-nosed brat.

 

[ok doser]

Yes, they use ASSUMPTIONS.

Did you even read the article you posted?

Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating is a technique which is used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed. The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay.^[1]
​

Those are ASSUMPTIONS.

he doesn't have any idea what you're talking about :dizzy:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, thank you, sir. I aim not to bore, at the very least.

Your tenacity at being in error has been a little annoying, but I can definitely congratulate you that, to the best of my recollection, you've been really quite polite and inoffensive with me, and far from a snot-nosed brat.

Oh, you're welcome. I only wish I could return the same in kind but that would kinda do away with the facetious aspect.

However, be well.

 

[Right Divider]

I read the whole thing and if you think the result of the abundance of methods is mere "assumption" where it comes to the age of the universe then you wouldn't be objective about this no matter what.

That's hilarious. You turn a blind eye to the FACTS and then complain that other do the same. You're a big time HYPOCRITE.

The "abundance of methods" does not make the chosen dates more accurate if they ALL make similar ASSUMPTIONS.

There may not be an absolute figure as to exactly how old the universe is but it's obviously billions of years old.

K:

:mock: "Obviously"?

You are a true believer!

 

[Right Divider]

he doesn't have any idea what you're talking about :dizzy:

No, he doesn't. He's just a true believer that cannot be swayed by the facts.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The plethora of data available determines that the universe is billions of years old if not to the exact year or thousands of years give or take. It's certainly older than thousands of years in itself else why would the evidence state otherwise?

You are claiming that one interpretation of the data is evidence but another interpretation of the exact same data is not evidence.
The truth is that neither interpretation is evidence, only the data itself is evidence.
The evidence (data) supports the interpretation that a young earth went through a cataclysmic event better than it supports the interpretation that the earth has existed for billions of years in placidity.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You don't need numbers attached to Siccar point to tell you a pattern like that takes more than a few thousand years to form.

That image shows the results of a cataclysmic event, not a few thousand placid years.

 

[ok doser]

The plethora of data available ...

data that you have never seen and wouldn't know how to interpret if you did see it?

that data?

data that you assume exists and has been interpreted accurately by people smarter than you?

that data?

 

[Alate_One]

That image shows the results of a cataclysmic event, not a few thousand placid years.

How does one cataclysm explain layers of rock turned on their sides, eroded for a huge amount of time and new rock layers forming on top that are then pushed out of water and eroded again?

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's hilarious. You turn a blind eye to the FACTS and then complain that other do the same. You're a big time HYPOCRITE.

The "abundance of methods" does not make the chosen dates more accurate if they ALL make similar ASSUMPTIONS.


K:

:mock: "Obviously"?

You are a true believer!

So, you think that scientists the world over arrived at the universe being over thirteen billion years old was down to little more than a set of assumptions? Just a random figure? There may not be an absolutely precise figure down to the actual year but there's no dispute in science that the universe is a lot older than what your religious belief dictates it to be.

You can accuse me of being what you want, doesn't mean anything to me.