Posted on 06/04/2009 8:50:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
101 evidences for a young age of the earth...and the universe
Can science prove the age of the earth?
There are many different categories of evidence that the cosmos and the earth are much younger than is generally asserted today...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Are you a Bible-believing, born again Christian, FreeDumb?
>>Are you a Bible-believing, born again Christian, FreeDumb?<<
I was born into the Church and am very much a Christian. Unlike you, I believe God wants us to love one another.
I have said this many times.
The fact I understand the Bible better than you also does not make your simplistic interpretation correct, any more than it makes your complete misunderstanding of science correct.
LOL! You sure have a strange way of showing it.
==The fact I understand the Bible better than you also does not make your simplistic interpretation correct, any more than it makes your complete misunderstanding of science correct.
LOL2!!!...this coming from a guy who brags about how many pages it was necessary to tear out of the Bible before he could believe what remained! You are something else, FreeDUmb.
>>LOL! You sure have a strange way of showing it.
One has only 2 cheeks — after that it is Moneychanger time.
>>this coming from a guy who brags about how many pages it was necessary to tear out of the Bible before he could believe what remained! You are something else, FreeDUmb.<<
Your inability to even understand the Bible comes out. Mommy and daddy did a heck of a number on you, didn’t they? But if you have a direct quote (you can check with that gay dude who cyber-stalks me) of me “ripping pages from the Bible” I would love to see it.
The fact I understand nuances and the fact the Bible was authored in many languages and has been badly misunderstood by many is certain;y not “ripping pages.”
But, not to worry — you are special. Even if mommy and daddy don’t think so.
You got me ‘dumb... I forgot...you’ve been trying to get yourself banned but can’t even manage to do THAT right!
LOL...my bad...carry on!
>>You got me ‘dumb... I forgot...you’ve been trying to get yourself banned but can’t even manage to do THAT right!<<
Reminding the outside world that there are many Conservatives who understand and practice science AND are Christians is not “trying to get banned.” My mistake was misunderstanding how the religion forum should be approached and used.
Making it clear that Luddites who don’t understand science do so because they are trying to be “special” (probably from daddy and mommy issues) is the point that must be made.
Ignorance is NOT a Conservative Value.
>>LOL...my bad...carry on!<<
Your bad — in so many ways.
Mr. Dumb, you keep using this phrase, or one similar, quite frquently. Are you speaking of journalists, or pundits?
Who do you think "understands science?" Do you have the slightest idea what the word science means?
I ask this because you seem to be of the erroneous belief that consensus can play a part in science. Back in 1975-76 when I was working on the rebuttal to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Peripheral Canal, we had assembled a group of the very best real scientists in the state to analyze the assertions that the report contained. Biologists, Ichthyologists, Estuarine Sediment Engineers, mostly from local colleges and universities.
My goal was in a general way to establish a consensus in each area, and thereby present a basis for doubt on every assertion of the report. It turned out to be a difficult undertaking, because by their nature real scientists reject any attempt to get them committed to consensus. Even for such an important cause as preventing the destruction of the Califoenia Delta.
You, on the other hand, as an observer seem to see consensus in every basket. Your vision seems to need correction.
>>you keep using this phrase, or one similar, quite frquently. Are you speaking of journalists, or pundits? <<
No, scientists.
>>Who do you think “understands science?” Do you have the slightest idea what the word science means?<<
Scientists and those of us who understand science.
>>I ask this because you seem to be of the erroneous belief that consensus can play a part in science. Back in 1975-76 when I was working on the rebuttal to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Peripheral Canal, we had assembled a group of the very best real scientists in the state to analyze the assertions that the report contained. Biologists, Ichthyologists, Estuarine Sediment Engineers, mostly from local colleges and universities.<<
And yet, you learned nothing from this assemblage. How sad.
>> My goal was in a general way to establish a consensus in each area, and thereby present a basis for doubt on every assertion of the report. It turned out to be a difficult undertaking, because by their nature real scientists reject any attempt to get them committed to consensus. Even for such an important cause as preventing the destruction of the Califoenia Delta.<<
And yet, you cannot even fathom the simplest of scientific principles. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
>>You, on the other hand, as an observer seem to see consensus in every basket. Your vision seems to need correction.<<
I understand the diversity in science. And I understand the very real argumentation in the scientific community. But the argumentation is not about the ToE fundamentals.
Except for the very tiny number of non LS “scientists” who put theology over science.
You appear to be the latter, but this is the chance for you to clear your name.
As I thought, you understand nothing.
You just hope that some gullible fools will bite on your ignorant foolishness.
You clearly have been drinking the Kool-Aid.
...the lowest form of wit...
Ohhhh, was THAT what you were trying to do????
And pray tell what outside world would you be referring to?
And what conservatives?
And what science?
btw, attaching Obama logos next to your name on other websites won’t convince ANYONE you’re a conservative, no matter what you pretend to be here, ‘dumb.
Uhh, sure buddy. Can you please tell HOW I am twisting the facts and what makes you such an authority on this issue?
And by the way, I have a very strong character. If you think you can tell someone's character by what they type then you are a very judgmental individual. There is nothing wrong with sarcasm. Are you a little sensitive?
I don’t believe you are a surveyor as your screen name implies and you previously said you were. You have previously said that relativity is bunk, but if you are really a surveyor, you are using equipment that relies on the GPS satellites. The satellites have hardware and software that compensate for relativity to give you cm accuracy. If they didn’t the locations marked by you would shift 100s of feet PER DAY. How do you explain this?
That has to be the stupidest thing you have ever posted. Where could you ever get such a false opinion?
" but if you are really a surveyor, you are using equipment that relies on the GPS satellites"
Occasionally I do. - GPS is good for control surveys for highway routes, or other such work where long distances are concerned, or in work where accuracy is unimportant, such as tagging water meters, fire hydrants, sewer manholes, etc. But for most work GPS is useless because obstructions will introduce error that cannot be accounted for. GPS accuracy depends on a uniform horizon, and in close quarters such as a residential neighborhood, it is not attainable, so using GPS will quickly get you in trouble. Some will do it anyway to cut costs, but at some point that kind of bravado will come home to roost.
The kind of 'shifting' you are talking about is not due to failing to account for relativistic considerations, but due to deliberate error that is injected into the broadcast ephemeris, called Selective Availability; that is not presently done anymore. Most high precision GPS work is not taken in realtime, but is post processed with statistical correction to conform to the accepted positions of existing ground stations. Realtime GPS surveying is done with what is called Realtime Kinematic processing, which cannot deliver precision without long observation times. For this reason conventional "total station" equipment is more efficient unless the site is clear of buildings, billboards, trees, or poles that interrupt the sky.
There is nothing wrong with proper sarcasm, but when it is used to deliberately give a false impression, as you did, it is a lie in camoflage.
“The “folding” in the photo in the article is nothing compared to what is readily visible along the coast of California.Do you know what the nearest street is?
At a beach in northwest Santa Barbara, there is a cut next to the parking lot that has a completely un-cracked fold that begins at a pin point center. It is absolute proof that it occurred while wet.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.