I'm a YEC. Challenge me.

[Doubting Thomas]

We are big Petri dishes.

[max-greece]

I made a post ages ago about a dream where God explained to me that she wasn't actually interested in us at all and the whole of creation was for Bacteria.

They have a stronger case for God than we do - they have been around, on this planet alone, for 1/3rd of the age of the universe.

If we ever find life on other planets its single cellular life we are guaranteed to find.

However much, or however little, life there is in the universe, single cellular will dominate.

[John V]

Yes, that's called an error bar: nobody is claiming that these dating methods are perfectly accurate, but you can see that they group around the same date range.

No, not all of them.

The ones that go noticeably under that are K-Ar readings, which aren't accurate because they record the last heating and impact event of the rocks- taken from a body that takes regular meteorite hits- rather than the actual age of the rock.

As I showed, in my link to you before.

you gave a link, but you didn't show what you claim. Here's what your link says:
Because of the severe impact history of the early Moon and the consequent heating and metamorphism of lunar samples, the conventional K-Ar method is not particularly useful in the study of lunar rock formation because it tends to date the latest heating and impact events rather than original rock ages.

It doesn't say regular meteor hits, it says the impacts occurred to "the early moon," which would not cause argon dating to be much more recent than other methods.

---

But not when evaluating the anonymous writers of your bible apparently.

It ain't called Anonymous's Epistle to the Galatians!

[TheBeardedDude]

Yes, that's called an error bar: nobody is claiming that these dating methods are perfectly accurate, but you can see that they group around the same date range.

No, not all of them.

The ones that go noticeably under that are K-Ar readings, which aren't accurate because they record the last heating and impact event of the rocks- taken from a body that takes regular meteorite hits- rather than the actual age of the rock.

As I showed, in my link to you before.

you gave a link, but you didn't show what you claim. Here's what your link says:
Because of the severe impact history of the early Moon and the consequent heating and metamorphism of lunar samples, the conventional K-Ar method is not particularly useful in the study of lunar rock formation because it tends to date the latest heating and impact events rather than original rock ages.

It doesn't say regular meteor hits, it says the impacts occurred to "the early moon," which would not cause argon dating to be much more recent than other methods.

---

But not when evaluating the anonymous writers of your bible apparently.

It ain't called Anonymous's Epistle to the Galatians!

It would if you lose the Argon through the resetting of the radiometric clock. It is a long understood problem for K-Ar and is why we use Ar-Ar for dating in the K-Ar system instead.

[max-greece]

Well, having learned from the YEC guys:

Who was Mark?
Who was Luke?
Who was Matthew?

Please provide:

Parental details, dates they lived. location they lived, career history, qualifications, details on their spouse, progeny.

Feel free to include any written documentation you have - loan agreements, marriage certificates, birth certificates and so on.

[Esquilax]

you gave a link, but you didn't show what you claim. Here's what your link says:
Because of the severe impact history of the early Moon and the consequent heating and metamorphism of lunar samples, the conventional K-Ar method is not particularly useful in the study of lunar rock formation because it tends to date the latest heating and impact events rather than original rock ages.

It doesn't say regular meteor hits, it says the impacts occurred to "the early moon," which would not cause argon dating to be much more recent than other methods.

So when one uses K-Ar dating on lunar rocks, it shows that they are younger because what is being shown is the date of the last heat and impact event, not the age of the actual rocks, which would fit in with the other brackets, presumably. I don't get what you're missing, here.

[Brian37]

Um um um um duh um, would you accept drawn stick figures as identification?

[Kayenneh]

Lol kayenneh your the best!

Because, you know, I made that gif and everything.. *cough, cough!*

I’m going to try another forum.

Heh, good luck with that. We have cross-species members here, the other forums will know that you're coming.

Perhaps I’ll eventually find an atheist not afraid to do that same level of research

You call THAT research? Bloody hell, no wonder you failed science classes during 9th grade. (Or was mommy just as silly as you? Probably, you share half the genetic material, after all..)

not afraid to read challenges to his own beliefs, willing skip past the bad ones (yes, unfortunately they do exist).

And alas, you're leaving when you met enough challenges and resistance. So sad. No, really, after that I am convinced that you don't live by your own standards.

Surely there must be some out there.

Start with yourself, perhaps a good education would be what the doctor ordered?

Don't peach pits contain cyanide? Or am I thinking of a different fruit?

Yup. Peach and apricot pits and almonds are 'high' in cyanide.

[Bucky Ball]

Sorry, I can't help myself ..

"I'm a YEC. Challenge me"

Really ?
If you're a YEC, your "challenged" enough. :p


meow

[pocaracas]

A friend of mine, once, came up to me with something he'd heard about from another guy who he wouldn't doubt. It was about an alleged beneficial effect on your overall health from eating peach cores. One a day. Google about it, there are tons of sites claiming that it's good for you.

Don't peach pits contain cyanide? Or am I thinking of a different fruit?

Yep, that's the one... They claim the small amounts of the poison are actually good for you... -.-'