Uh... there have been thousands of accurately made field measurements using all sorts of radiometric dating techniques.
12/27/2007 8:26:52 AM
Mirror, mirror, on the wall?
No, there have been many, MANY tests to show how this works.
Bible-thumpers are the ones who work with circular logic.
12/27/2007 8:34:55 AM
RR, I ask you, in all honesty, why would you accuse anyone of wanting to disprove god? It would be a waste of time and effort considering that there is not a hint of proof that he exists.
Belief, unfortunately, does not constitute proof.
12/27/2007 8:50:08 AM
I'm surprised protest warrior hasn't been used more.
12/27/2007 9:18:01 AM
wtf is a geologoical shelf?
12/27/2007 9:22:56 AM
12/27/2007 9:27:36 AM
You have never opened a book of science, haven't you?
12/27/2007 10:29:47 AM
How exactly does radioactive dating prove or disprove God?
12/27/2007 12:06:35 PM
In the actual elements? Geologlical shelf? Which works in circular logic? What does that mean?
12/27/2007 12:46:20 PM
RR just heard some big words and tried to make himself sound smarter than those evil atheist scientists.
Too bad he failed miserably.
12/27/2007 2:36:06 PM
The only assumptions that radiometric dating makes are that the observable laws of physics haven't changed since they started making measurements. I suggest you read up on radioactivity, since you should have learnt this when you were 14 ffs.
12/27/2007 2:37:10 PM
Scientists and laboratories all over the world have tested the principles of radiochronometry. They have all agreed on the predictable patterns and rates of isotope decay.
One sect of Christians, on the other hand, can not be relied upon to agree with another Christian sect, even within the same cultural matrix.
One involves intelligent investigation and analysis...the other, simple playground politics.
12/27/2007 3:29:16 PM
"Do I know what the fuck I'm talking about? No. I talk like this so you think I would. I failed. I'm such a dickhead."
12/27/2007 3:44:14 PM
"I heard something from someone I trust that potassium-argon dating had been proven false. I don't know what it is, but since my pastor told me it was a fake, I know more about it than any scientist."
12/27/2007 3:49:23 PM
It looks like someone took a perfectly good argument, shot it with an elephant gun and put it through a blender.
Then spat on it.
12/27/2007 4:06:06 PM
Looking at this source, I say retarded
12/27/2007 4:35:12 PM
No, circular logic is when you quote the Bible to prove it veracity and that it was divinely inspired.
Non-circular logic is when you take known measurements, made with an already-proven method and verify them with the new method. If the new method works, it's also proven.
12/27/2007 4:49:58 PM
YOU FAIL AT LOGICAL ARGUMENTS.
12/27/2007 4:51:47 PM
Why do I get the feeling that if I asked RR to explain this, I would get some YEC crap that would make even less sense than this guy's post(which is already indecipherable )?
12/27/2007 5:09:34 PM
Please construct your sentences in a coherent manner.
12/27/2007 5:37:18 PM
Liar. They do do field test.
12/27/2007 6:03:22 PM
Yep. Another victim of choking on a Smart Word salad. Why can't these idiots realize that, even if they can string together a coherent argument (doubtful in itself), risible spelling and grammar really betrays all those Smart Words; they still end up looking like a retarded raccoon with a keyboard.
12/27/2007 7:11:34 PM
It's ... it's ... it's trying to make sentences.
12/27/2007 10:35:48 PM
"which works in circular logic, and BAM! they think it is irrefutable."
You must get your info from incompetent scientists who can't even disprove God in a lab, using circular logic and geologoical shelves, without getting explosions.
12/27/2007 11:34:41 PM