Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Radiometric dating
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mechanical Bliss" data-source="post: 14305952" data-attributes="member: 5048"><p>It's always hilarious when creationists complain about scientists making assumptions--assumptions that are well substantiated because they are observed to be so and are confirmed by the relationships between independent research (which have never been addressed by creationists).</p><p> </p><p>Then they turn around and start making assumptions of their own, which are not conclusions from any evidence, are not well substantiated, are not observed to be so, and are not confirmed by any research whatsoever...like this: "Another assumption I think would be that before death and decay entered the world, things were different."</p><p> </p><p>The assumptions used in radiometric dating have been demonstrated to work (mainly because they are not mere assumptions, but conclusions from observation), so there's no reason to cry foul, especially if you can't explain why they are invalid yet work all the same.</p><p> </p><p>The assumptions used by creationists are wishful thinking.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mechanical Bliss, post: 14305952, member: 5048"] It's always hilarious when creationists complain about scientists making assumptions--assumptions that are well substantiated because they are observed to be so and are confirmed by the relationships between independent research (which have never been addressed by creationists). Then they turn around and start making assumptions of their own, which are not conclusions from any evidence, are not well substantiated, are not observed to be so, and are not confirmed by any research whatsoever...like this: "Another assumption I think would be that before death and decay entered the world, things were different." The assumptions used in radiometric dating have been demonstrated to work (mainly because they are not mere assumptions, but conclusions from observation), so there's no reason to cry foul, especially if you can't explain why they are invalid yet work all the same. The assumptions used by creationists are wishful thinking. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Radiometric dating
Top
Bottom