The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods

CMI ^ | July 30, 2009 | Tas Walker, Ph.D.

[tpanther]

Actually...you don’t want real answers, what you want are comfortable ones.

Sorry, no. That's the domain of the 'thumpers.

If you read the Bible instead of snipping at it, you'll understand it pushes and challenges you out of your comfort levels.

You know at this point, it may be easier to show you so far what you've gotten right:

Here ya go...I'll begin:

[tpanther]

Another example of a stunningly scientific rebuttal to the issue.

What a great example of the *scientific* type of discussion that the DCer/FRevos bemoan is missing on FR threads.

No wonder scientists credibility is tanking.

---

Dr. Drive-by...in his typical liberal fashion.

[tpanther]

“How PERFECT That the Cretin site links to a CHILDRENS website when it discuses radiometric dating”.

How else are the grown-ups supposed to communicate to the brainwashed masses of NEA secular humanist failed gubmint screwels?

For the last several days I’ve been linking, everything from stick figures, to maps, to color charts...pretty much you name it and evo-cultists STILL can’t discuss what they’ve seen!

[tpanther]

The Braying Chorus didn't come here to debate of inform or counter anything, they came to honk and hoot from the other side of street.

Well that's what jackassed liberals do...well that and then call you the liberal.

[editor-surveyor]

Good evening Quacktor Michael!

[count-your-change]

It continues to puzzle why they waste the effort. Put I won’t waste my efforts trying to work that out.

Once you got your finger in Darwin’s eye, don’t stop at the first knuckle! Cheers!

[Filo]

Well Filo, if "reality" is truly as you describe it, who on earth in their right mind would want to "procreate" in the first place?

Seems like committing suicide would be the more reasonable option by far....

If you need some divine power to give your life meaning then that's your prerogative.

[Filo]

You should try reading the Bible sometime to understand later just how utterly foolish your assertions are now.

I've read it cover to cover several times.

Now what?

[Filo]

Great job, I see you came to the same conclusion virtually everyone else did: you’re an angry 13 year old, rather you responded or not.

Well, I’ll give you that you did have that 1-2% of the 11-12 year old age group to impress.

2 thumbs up!

You should take a shot at learning English. It makes reading your ad hominems easier if you have some semblance of literacy.

Of course, you'll still sound like an idiot and you'll still be wrong, but at least you'll have grammar and spelling on your side.

[Filo]

What is reason or legacy without a God? Who decides purpose or morality when there is no measure?

It puzzles me when those who believe there is no God bother with things like purpose and morality. If I’m a free agent what does it really matter what I do (other than simple self-preservation). Seems kind of hypocritical, in a really wierd sort of way.

And to me it seems kind-of self-serving to think that there is no purpose or morality without God*.

[Filo]

You claim to be looking for the answers and yet declare that you know our purpose for existence (procreation).

It would be nice if your answers are more consistent than you are, but I'm not so hopeful.

I never said that procreation is the purpose for our existence. I said that we exist to procreate and because we do.

There is a difference, although that is clearly lost on you.

[Filo]

To what end?

I don't have an answer to that. I'm not even convinced that there is one. But at least I'm not just making one up and calling it good.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[Filo]

Can I sell you on the accident fairy? Once upon a time, a bunch of monkeys were picking bananas. The accident fairy came along and swished her sparkly natural selection wand, and poof, some monkeys accidentally developed better banana picking skills and left more descendants than the lamers. Slowly but surely, with many swishes of the accident fairy's wand, the monkeys got better and better at banana picking. Their brains grew bigger by accident too. Soon they were wearing powdered wigs and drivng cars and playing chess and posting to Freerepublic. That's how you got here.

Which, along with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, are far better explanations than God* ever could be.

[YHAOS]

”I don't have an answer to that. I'm not even convinced that there is one. But at least I'm not just making one up and calling it good.”

Very well. Go back to your ‘procreating’ (or a reasonable facsimile).

[Kozak]

yeah sure. Like the regular readers of that Cretin swamp site are "secular humanists". Nice try. Still smells like...

[Gordon Greene]

“And to me it seems kind-of self-serving to think that there is no purpose or morality without God”

That’s where you miss the boat, Filo. Your way is about serving self and man; what I’m talking about is God-serving. In serving God you learn the importance of others and truly loving yourself for what you are and not the over-inflated idea of being a free agent.

[wendy1946]

The meaning of life is irrelevant to the question of whether macroevolution is possible or not (it isn’t). In ancient times there were quasi-reliable communication channels between our physical realm and the spiritual realm which God and the dead inhabit; those communication channels no longer exist. If you can’t figure out a meaningful reason for life here, they’ll explain it to you there by and by....

[Filo]

That’s where you miss the boat, Filo. Your way is about serving self and man; what I’m talking about is God-serving. In serving God you learn the importance of others and truly loving yourself for what you are and not the over-inflated idea of being a free agent.

I'd prefer not to spend my time and my life "serving" a fictional character.

I can learn all you mentioned and more (and I'm quite certain that I am far more of a Christian - by behavior - than most 'thumpers) without deluding myself.

[metmom]

I can learn all you mentioned and more (and I'm quite certain that I am far more of a Christian - by behavior - than most 'thumpers) without deluding myself.

Not when your comparison is to the Word of God instead of your own concept of what a *Christian* should be.

The arrogance of those who profess to be more Christian in behavior than believers, all the while rejecting the very standard that establishes Christian behavior, knows no bounds.

Why be proud of your behavior being more Christian than others when you consider Christianity and the Bible to be fairy tales?

There's a real disconnect in your ummm, reasoning (for lack of a better term)