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
Scientific results here and now apply to there and then
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="46AND2" data-source="post: 74463861" data-attributes="member: 315032"><p>Well, since you used it as an argument against the age of the earth, it seemed like a reasonable assumption. Otherwise, what is the point of bringing it up in that circumstance? A 20 year inherent age of Adam is entirely irrelevant in a discussion about the age of the earth....unless you were suggesting the earth had millions of years of inherent age. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope. Starlight is not a method we use to measure the age of the earth.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not assumed. Regularly tested. So regularly, in fact, that index fossils can be assigned ages because of how many times (lots of) they have been tested previously resulting in consistent dates.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, we don't assume that at all. We have consistently tested it, using multiple unrelated methods. How do all the methods result consistently with the same wrong answer?</p><p></p><p>Additionally, we have purposely TRIED, unsuccessfully, to vary the decay rates, using pressure, magnetism, temperature, and many others. If we simply assumed they were the same, why run tests to try to falsify it?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="46AND2, post: 74463861, member: 315032"] Well, since you used it as an argument against the age of the earth, it seemed like a reasonable assumption. Otherwise, what is the point of bringing it up in that circumstance? A 20 year inherent age of Adam is entirely irrelevant in a discussion about the age of the earth....unless you were suggesting the earth had millions of years of inherent age. Nope. Starlight is not a method we use to measure the age of the earth. Not assumed. Regularly tested. So regularly, in fact, that index fossils can be assigned ages because of how many times (lots of) they have been tested previously resulting in consistent dates. No, we don't assume that at all. We have consistently tested it, using multiple unrelated methods. How do all the methods result consistently with the same wrong answer? Additionally, we have purposely TRIED, unsuccessfully, to vary the decay rates, using pressure, magnetism, temperature, and many others. If we simply assumed they were the same, why run tests to try to falsify it? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Scientific results here and now apply to there and then
Top
Bottom