(November 24, 2014 at 2:37 am)Creatard Wrote: I was led to believe people would debate civilly on this site. If you don't have anything to add to the argument, kindly get off. Its funny you guys insist we are the intolerant and narrow minded ones.

I appreciate your efforts to moderate the thread, but that's my job. I don't really need any help. Thanks all the same.

(November 24, 2014 at 3:30 am)TubbyTubby Wrote: The phrases 'real world experiences' and 'pursue pastoral ministries' are not compatible.

Again, enough with the trolling.

Creationites are always eager to point at whatever +/- error rate there is for a given radiometric measurement all the while studiously ignoring the error of a Usherian 6000 year old earth being off by a factor of over half a million.

(November 24, 2014 at 11:14 am)Creatard Wrote: Again, enough with the trolling.

No trolling, just my opinion on your comments and one which I stand by. If preachers started preaching about 'real world' science they would soon lose their flock as it would contradict their beliefs and holy books.

I'll comment what I like unless warned by a moderator, which you are not as pointed out to you.

(November 24, 2014 at 11:14 am)Creatard Wrote:

(November 24, 2014 at 3:30 am)TubbyTubby Wrote: The phrases 'real world experiences' and 'pursue pastoral ministries' are not compatible.

Again, enough with the trolling.

Yes, yes, let's get back to the topic. You have 6 comments on this forum and in three of them, you complain about the tone. How about spilling some more about the subject at hand?

(November 24, 2014 at 11:14 am)Creatard Wrote: Again, enough with the trolling.

Please answer my question above, thanks.

HAHAHA!
You guys are actually expecting an honest reply from the creatard?!

(November 24, 2014 at 3:42 am)Exian Wrote: Are you suggesting that if daughter isotopes are present at the time that is gleaned from the tests, then those isotopes will throw off the count and add years to the results, and instead if they were accounted for, the dates would be much more recent?

If so, and we were somehow able to discern the daughter isotopes present at the beginning of the process, then the issue would still be unclear, I would think. A daughter isotope present at the beginning process would still suggest a process of decay, and the age would have to be calculated further back.

Yes, I am suggesting that daughter isotopes would create an "older" age for the test. The problem is there is not a certain way to discern the daughter isotopes present at the beginning of the process. That is why I brought up isochrones, because it is supposed to account for that unknown, but we always have to assume the amount of sister isotopes are uniform in their respective rock layers. They basically created a graph where we don't know three instead of two of the variables. Dr. Jim Mason wrote a good piece on the subject. I'll try to find it for you.

(November 24, 2014 at 2:37 am)Creatard Wrote:

(November 24, 2014 at 2:32 am)Minimalist Wrote: Indeed we do.

I was led to believe people would debate civilly on this site. If you don't have anything to add to the argument, kindly get off. Its funny you guys insist we are the intolerant and narrow minded ones.

It really depends on what you bring and how you present it. If you point out seeming contradictions within the natural world which you think is evidence for a creator god some of us will just laugh to ourselves. Others will be insulted that you'd bring such weak shit to the table. Your attitude hasn't been as presumptuous and condescending as many of your stripe, so I feel no need to pile on.

However that doesn't mean the subject is of interest. It interests you because you want to hang on to your god belief.

To really win respect here theists need to be absolutely clear about what they believe as an act of faith and what they believe on evidence. Not everyone seems to have the talent for this, but I think it is worth striving for. Good luck young one.