(February 4, 2014 at 8:44 am)Carnavon Wrote: What assumptions are they using? The same ones that concluded that the rocks from Mt Ngauruhoe was dated into the millions of years whereas it was only a few years? Don't get me wrong, these scientists use the best methods they have available and come to conclusions based on a number of assumptions that will invalidate any finding if these conditions are not met. I am no scientist but is obvious even for an "outsider" like me that your assumptions, if invalid, makes your findings invalid. There are also a number of facts which mitigate against an old earth, which you are welcome to study if you would like to form an objective opinion on the matter.

Oh, so you're that kind of creationist, are you?

No wonder you're so willing to ignore refutations and facts.

Quote:And as mentioned before, what is stated in the Bible as fact has always come up trumps in the end, disproving previous opposing "facts". This gives me the confidence in accepting what the Bible says even when "science" claims otherwise.

See, you say this, but the problem is, it's not true: the bible is routinely disproven. The earth wasn't created in six days, night and day did not exist before the sun, nor does the moon emit its own light, rabbits don't chew the cud, there was no great flood, there are civilizations that existed and even had their own religions well before the dates proposed by young earth creationism, and mankind evolved rather than being spawned from two people. I could go on, but I shouldn't need to: so many of the bible's primary claims have been roundly debunked by science, and so far your only response to any of the real, validated science you've been given is to merely assert that the scientific consensus supports the opposite conclusion, when it does not.

You are simply lying, ignoring anything inconvenient to the lies you want to believe, and making baseless assertions while acting as though they're backed up with facts that you, conveniently, never seem to link to.

Top to bottom dishonesty.

(February 4, 2014 at 8:44 am)Carnavon Wrote: What assumptions are they using? The same ones that concluded that the rocks from Mt Ngauruhoe was dated into the millions of years whereas it was only a few years?

Don't you think it's interesting to note that if you search for "Mt Ngauruhoe rock dating", the first 12 hits give you creationist related sites, then the 13th is the wikipedia entry and then back to creationist sites...?
Now why is that?
Why isn't that particular piece of information available from reputable sources?
And those creationist sources all revolve around one particular dating method, the Potassium-Argon (K-Ar).
Now, bear in mind that these sites are claiming that the use of this method to dating lava flows from the 1950's yielded wrong results.

Now look at the applicability of this method (from wiki the layman version, as you like it):

Quote:Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is likely that not enough Argon 40 will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable.

So, measuring 50 year old rock with a method that can only give you reliable results for rocks older than 100,000 years... huh? clever chap, whoever thought of wasting resources with that measurement... -.-'

Now, tell me why you brought up a flawed measurement, when it was stupidly applied to a piece of rock known to be grossly outside of the method's domain of applicability.
While you're at it, tell me why there are so many creationist sites propagating this stupidity.

(February 4, 2014 at 9:23 am)pocaracas Wrote: Now, tell me why you brought up a flawed measurement, when it was stupidly applied to a piece of rock known to be grossly outside of the method's domain of applicability.

Because he's looking exclusively for information that confirms his pre-existing beliefs, while intentionally ignoring anything that challenges or contradicts it?

I thought the last few pages made that pretty clear.

Good job on looking that up, mind: I didn't even think to do that.

(February 4, 2014 at 9:29 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 4, 2014 at 9:23 am)pocaracas Wrote: Now, tell me why you brought up a flawed measurement, when it was stupidly applied to a piece of rock known to be grossly outside of the method's domain of applicability.

Because he's looking exclusively for information that confirms his pre-existing beliefs, while intentionally ignoring anything that challenges or contradicts it?

I thought the last few pages made that pretty clear.

Good job on looking that up, mind: I didn't even think to do that.

I was hoping he would reply!

Quote:And as mentioned before, what is stated in the Bible as fact has always come up trumps in the end

Oh, indeed. My favorite is that God created plants before he created the sun. This is obviously factual.

(February 4, 2014 at 9:37 am)pocaracas Wrote: I was hoping he would reply!

He might. But we both know he won't give the honest answer.

(February 4, 2014 at 8:44 am)Carnavon Wrote: There are also a number of facts which mitigate against an old earth...

(February 4, 2014 at 9:52 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 4, 2014 at 9:37 am)pocaracas Wrote: I was hoping he would reply!

He might. But we both know he won't give the honest answer.

Aww, come on.. don't be like that.. give him a chance.
Just because the odds of him giving an honest answer are infinitesimal, it doesn't mean that he won't!

Thus far, apart from these creationist propaganda erroneous pieces of information which he has accepted, he seems to be a normal bloke. My expectation of him giving an honest answer is a bit higher than the regular Y.E.Creationist.

(February 4, 2014 at 9:58 am)pocaracas Wrote: Thus far, apart from these creationist propaganda erroneous pieces of information which he has accepted, he seems to be a normal bloke. My expectation of him giving an honest answer is a bit higher than the regular Y.E.Creationist.

My hope for that evaporated after about the third time he ignored a simple correction in favor of making the same claim again. Ignorance I can deal with, but when a guy seems that uninterested in actually having a discourse, I'm not going to pull my punches.

I like him. I think he's wrong, but not cynically so.