(on the age of the earth being 4.5 billion years)
Do you have historical documentation of that or do I have to take it on faith?
"Helioseismology and/or measuring radioactive decay."
Took that long for that? Helioseismology, the study based on the assumption that the Sun's makeup hasn't changed. I like a good assumption as much as the next guy, but hardly scientific.
14 comments
This is one of those examples where one finally recognises the foundational fallacy.
"Creationists" believe they are epic strawman killers. "Creationists" assume scientists do things the same way they do, by assuming the conclusion and inventing facts to prove it.
An 86 TA starts out 20 miles away with a full tank of gas. It goes by at 60 MPH with the gas tank missing 1 gallon. How long has it been travelling?
Do you have historical documentation of that or do I have to take it on faith?
image
Helioseismology, the study based on the assumption that the Sun's makeup hasn't changed. I like a good assumption as much as the next guy, but hardly scientific.
Actually, it's all about determining how the sun's makeup has changed over the years based on what we can observe it doing, but never mind...
Then there is the ever popular measuring radioactive decay, "scientists" believe they can tell the age of something by how much radiation it contains, yet they have no record of the beginning levels or any outside influences involved. It's the same as trying to find the answer to a math problem that goes like this: An '86 TA goes by at 60 mph, how long has it been traveling?
Again, we know exactly how much radiation it should have contained in the beginning, which is how we can date things based on their radiation levels. Mister Spak's version of your equation is a more accurate one by far.
Then why hasn't Dr, Buzz Aldrin questioned the veracity of findings by NASA scientists after fellow Apollo astronauts brought back the 'Genesis Rock':
image
Which was proved to be the exact age of the Earth: 4.5 billion years.
He accepted scientific fact ; no 'Faith' required. Dr. Aldrin is a Conservative Christian , o Boner. Or would you like to be left trying to re-enter your teeth as you re-entered Earth after Buzz decked you: just as per someone who questioned the veracity of his achievement?
We have this, dN/dt=-LN implies N=N0 e-Lt . You have a silly book.
Also, he doesn't seem to know what helioseismology is.
Neither historical documentation or faith. We have scientific evidence. But since you cannot and will not learn the language of science, you can only stand outside and mock. You're like the person who says "Yaah, it wasn't much of a party anyway" when what he really means is that he wasn't invited.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
