(April 28, 2012 at 12:50 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:

Abishalom Wrote:I don't "need" the earth to be 6,000 years old (nor did I ever say that) but you NEED for it to 4.5 billion years sold to fit your "slow processes over long periods of time" fantasy.

The number 4.5 billion comes from geology i.e. the oldest terrestrial samples we have to date.

What method did they use?

(April 28, 2012 at 2:38 pm)Abishalom Wrote: What method did they use?

Would you understand the method, even if we told you?

Radiometric Dating!

Charistian apologetics in 3, 2, 1...

(Not that they understand what radiometric dating really entails... Oh well, ket the stupidity flow...)

(April 28, 2012 at 12:48 pm)Epimethean Wrote: If you don't have anything to prove here (which you haven't), why do you keep coming back to act as if you have made anything like a cogent case against a 4.5 million year old earth and evolution, both of which have solid scientific support as against your biblical fantasy premise?

Where did I make an argument about the earth's age (I haven't...yet )?

---

(April 28, 2012 at 2:44 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Radiometric Dating!

Charistian apologetics in 3, 2, 1...

(Not that they understand what radiometric dating really entails... Oh well, ket the stupidity flow...)

Well there's more than one dating method. Which one did they use to determine 4.5 billion years (since you're sooo much smarter than me )?

---

(April 28, 2012 at 2:39 pm)Kayenneh Wrote:

(April 28, 2012 at 2:38 pm)Abishalom Wrote: What method did they use?

Would you understand the method, even if we told you?

Do you even understand the method? (or does it just give you the answer you prefer )

"Where did I make an argument about the earth's age (I haven't...yet )?"

Meet:

"Charistian apologetics in 3, 2, 1.."

(April 28, 2012 at 2:51 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Do you even understand the method? (or does it just give you the answer you prefer )

Yes, but not as well as I would like, since my area of expertise is in chemistry and biology, not geology.

(April 28, 2012 at 4:02 pm)Kayenneh Wrote:

(April 28, 2012 at 2:51 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Do you even understand the method? (or does it just give you the answer you prefer )

Yes, but not as well as I would like, since my area of expertise is in chemistry and biology, not geology.

Fair enough. So which method do they use to get 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth?

Do I seem to be the personification of Google to you? Wouldn't it be easier if you read about it yourself?

(April 28, 2012 at 4:15 pm)Kayenneh Wrote: Do I seem to be the personification of Google to you? Wouldn't it be easier if you read about it yourself?

So in other words...you don't know?

No, I do know. But I'm not gonna hand it over on a silver platter for you. If you're too lazy to check it out for yourself, then that's your loss, not mine.