It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333
So very many words to say this:
is it inaccurate?? no!
So the genealogies are accurate?
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: John333
I think the Annunaki did the same thing and look how that turned out!
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333
My, you write so much and say so little.
So, word salad aside, you seem to being saying that the genealogies are accurate. In that case they can be followed. And when that is done, right back to creation, it turns out the Earth is 6,000 years old.
creation.com...
originally posted by: John333
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
a mater of perspective. i found ken ham humiliated bill nye who couldnt answer questions leading to the entire university faculty to mumur in disaproval.
but.. u can turn a blind eye to that to see support your biased perspective assuming noone reading ur comment watched the debates.
lel
sigh why do u guys try this sort of thing. dont u know ill call u out?
also considering my spelling mistakes.. i thought id leave a few in this post for you.. enjoy!
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: John333
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
a mater of perspective. i found ken ham humiliated bill nye who couldnt answer questions leading to the entire university faculty to mumur in disaproval.
but.. u can turn a blind eye to that to see support your biased perspective assuming noone reading ur comment watched the debates.
lel
sigh why do u guys try this sort of thing. dont u know ill call u out?
also considering my spelling mistakes.. i thought id leave a few in this post for you.. enjoy!
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If you seriously believe that Ham in any way shape or form humiliated Bill Nye then it can only be due to your own internal religious bias. Only a deluded supporter of Ham, who is a charlatan and a hack as well as being nuttier than a tree full of squirrels, would think otherwise.
It was the other way around. Nye didn't just humiliate him he destroyed him. There was no 'murmur of disapproval' from anyone in the faculty.
You're very amusing, you know that? It's that or you're trolling the lot of us.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: John333
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333
dammnn im good.
Indeed.
At spouting nonsense. And saying a whole lot of nothing.
what can i say.... where u see nothing.. i see something..
seems to be the theme
You do know there's doctors and medication for that?
originally posted by: John333
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: John333
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
a mater of perspective. i found ken ham humiliated bill nye who couldnt answer questions leading to the entire university faculty to mumur in disaproval.
but.. u can turn a blind eye to that to see support your biased perspective assuming noone reading ur comment watched the debates.
lel
sigh why do u guys try this sort of thing. dont u know ill call u out?
also considering my spelling mistakes.. i thought id leave a few in this post for you.. enjoy!
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If you seriously believe that Ham in any way shape or form humiliated Bill Nye then it can only be due to your own internal religious bias. Only a deluded supporter of Ham, who is a charlatan and a hack as well as being nuttier than a tree full of squirrels, would think otherwise.
It was the other way around. Nye didn't just humiliate him he destroyed him. There was no 'murmur of disapproval' from anyone in the faculty.
You're very amusing, you know that? It's that or you're trolling the lot of us.
babhahahaha that must be why bill nye had such a bewildered look of embarrassment on his face.. pot calling kettle black.
Ham was very effective in explaining teh difference between theory and fact. and the entire room got the point. heck.. im sure if u asked bill nye he would agree that the whole room had a problem with his answers at that point.
originally posted by: John333
a reply to: peter vlar
However either both you and phage are being disingenuous or ur forgetting something. carbon dating isnt something that stands on its own.
and uses supporting THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS. some of those include tree ring and sendimentation layer analysis. trees can grow at different rates depending on the rhichness of the soil.
sedimentation.. can happen for a number of reasons including a flood, landslide, river course changing over time. none of these things are factored in the dating process.
so to say carbon dating is only c14 dating i have to say is disingenuous. carbon dating includes all the dating methods we use to guess the age of a fossil.
radioactive decay, tree ring analysis, depth in layers of sedimentation. these account for the full scope of carbon dating methods. so radioactive decay.. which again is an observation of the slowing of oscillations which is observed to be occuring at a constant rate is the most solid one. we get it, that can be calculated backwards. but the hijink is in the methods devised to support c14 dating where it cannot in any way accurately deduce the real age.
and dont pretend you dont know that even c14 dating methods tend to throw up different numbers in tests. 1st test will say 50,000 years. second test will say 25,000 years. 3rd test will say 5000 years. 4th test will say 32,000 yrs. 5th test will say 49,000 yrs... and then youll be like.. yeah we got close to 50,0000 twice so that must be it.
im not saying its not science in development. but its hardly the kind of thing you should promote under the dictionary meaning of the word FACTS!
please science.. dont try to redefine the word. thats the part where i call BS.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: John333
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: John333
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
a mater of perspective. i found ken ham humiliated bill nye who couldnt answer questions leading to the entire university faculty to mumur in disaproval.
but.. u can turn a blind eye to that to see support your biased perspective assuming noone reading ur comment watched the debates.
lel
sigh why do u guys try this sort of thing. dont u know ill call u out?
also considering my spelling mistakes.. i thought id leave a few in this post for you.. enjoy!
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If you seriously believe that Ham in any way shape or form humiliated Bill Nye then it can only be due to your own internal religious bias. Only a deluded supporter of Ham, who is a charlatan and a hack as well as being nuttier than a tree full of squirrels, would think otherwise.
It was the other way around. Nye didn't just humiliate him he destroyed him. There was no 'murmur of disapproval' from anyone in the faculty.
You're very amusing, you know that? It's that or you're trolling the lot of us.
babhahahaha that must be why bill nye had such a bewildered look of embarrassment on his face.. pot calling kettle black.
Ham was very effective in explaining teh difference between theory and fact. and the entire room got the point. heck.. im sure if u asked bill nye he would agree that the whole room had a problem with his answers at that point.
Yup, you're trolling us. Ham was a massive embarrassment.
originally posted by: John333
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: John333
Why don't you do a Google search on carbon dating? Why don't you read the physical evidence? Do you even understand the process well enough to comment on it?
Why don't you write a letter to all these researchers and tell them why they're wrong? Why not write a letter to Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and tell them they should shut down because it doesn't work?
www.physics.arizona.edu...
i have studied it. why do u think im commenting. ive studied the entire process and all its interacting agents. Heck even phage admitted that it has it's limits. so.. how the hell did they devise the age of the earth with a 50-150,000 year limit with a high margin of error?
u assume that i havent thoroughly studied these things before commenting only places u at the disadvantage. pls.. dont assume u know my level of study and knowledge.
i am predicting.. definitively, that the numbers produced by science WILL CHANGE. and when that happens you will HOPEFULLY understand what ive been calling BS on. a fact is a fact. an elephant has 4 legs. thats a fact. 100 or 1000 years from now, an elephant will still have 4 legs. but if science is watching the elephant from the side and sees the elephant as having two legs. we must be forced into accepting that as fact until they walk around the elephant to realize it has 2 more legs?
science is developing. working theories are working theories. the reason theyve stayed theories for so long is because with each successive test the data is inconclusive to determine a constant law. this simply means taht some factors havent been factored into the equation. so you go believing everything science says is the God given truth if you like.
but you should use google also.. a change of perspective helps to see the whole picture
answersingenesis.org...
originally posted by: John333
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: John333
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: John333
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
a mater of perspective. i found ken ham humiliated bill nye who couldnt answer questions leading to the entire university faculty to mumur in disaproval.
but.. u can turn a blind eye to that to see support your biased perspective assuming noone reading ur comment watched the debates.
lel
sigh why do u guys try this sort of thing. dont u know ill call u out?
also considering my spelling mistakes.. i thought id leave a few in this post for you.. enjoy!
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If you seriously believe that Ham in any way shape or form humiliated Bill Nye then it can only be due to your own internal religious bias. Only a deluded supporter of Ham, who is a charlatan and a hack as well as being nuttier than a tree full of squirrels, would think otherwise.
It was the other way around. Nye didn't just humiliate him he destroyed him. There was no 'murmur of disapproval' from anyone in the faculty.
You're very amusing, you know that? It's that or you're trolling the lot of us.
babhahahaha that must be why bill nye had such a bewildered look of embarrassment on his face.. pot calling kettle black.
Ham was very effective in explaining teh difference between theory and fact. and the entire room got the point. heck.. im sure if u asked bill nye he would agree that the whole room had a problem with his answers at that point.
Yup, you're trolling us. Ham was a massive embarrassment.
i did identify it as a matter of perspective didnt i. thus you will root for your team and i will root for mine. however in this case my team is neither ham nor nye. its nye where nye gives me good info. its ham's where ham gives me good info. but where the two of them give me nonsense i depart from both of them..
THAT my friend.. is called being an objective scientist. im in noone's fanclub causing me to biasedly agree with them. nor do i consider my thinking capabilities inadequate to challenge their theories. u think urs is inadequate and just say yes yes i agree. I, Question... Everything.
originally posted by: peter vlar
Trees certainly do grow at different rates. Those rates are exhibited in the tree ring count. Wider rings are wetter years, tighter rings are dryer years for example. The rate of group with however does not change the tree ring count. Ever.
originally posted by: peter vlar
So you can support this wild claim with a citation then, right?