Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

[oxmixmudd]

Ox I am going to ignore the claim you make of being a christian because you are an embarrassment to the name of Christ even if you are since you continue to lie to yourself and to me that you know what s in myheart and mind.

Mike, in my first post in this thread (post 16), I raised the issue of decay rates and their dependence on universal constants such as c. You responded to that very post (heavily redacted) a few posts later here: Mike's response to post 16

So the accusation I am 'lying to myself that I know what is in your heart and mind' is absurd. I simply had the audacity to assume you read the post you responded to. In point of fact, I've not said anything about what is in your heart and mind in this entire discussion, nor have I (unlike you toward me) made any negative insinuations about your faith nor have I derided your behavior.

Not that I think it will matter to you much as long as I identify you as OEC. That obviously at least in this thread is your higher priority. I haven't read through every post in this thread and don't recall at all that post. i raised the issue because someone mentioned constants not being able to change and as it turns out over the last few years I have been following that - without reading a single article from a creationist site and research on that just came out earlier this year. SO please keep fibbing about knowing my mind

And again, I've done nothing in this thread but give reasoned responses to the points you have raised. I have made no comments about you or your faith. At most, I've simply noted that you use the same arguments YEC's use to make your points. Which is simply a matter of record.

drivel and putrid nonsense. you will make up anything in your head to justify your garbage against someone who is not a fundy such as yourself. because someone says we need to research independently if organic material can really last 80 million years particularly since the initial reaction of SCIENTISTS was that it was improbably it could last that long they are invoking solipsism and don't believe we can know anything outside ourselves?

No Mike. Your approach to this entire discussion is one of "If I can't be proven, it can't be known to any degree of certainty". That is, at its core solipsism. BUT you are only applying it to the issue of dates as assigned by radiometric dating. So it is very inconsistent.

Take a bow. There has probably never been a greater example of total intellectual dishonest and lack of integrity than your bogus carnal accusation there - even more disgraceful coming from a self confessed Christian to another one.

Yeah, Jorge likes to say that about me a lot as well. In fact, one thing that does tend to be a common thread with many who argue as you do is that there is not much that will make them angrier and more red faced than a simple and calm discussion that focuses ONLY on the facts and the data. This thread has, unfortunately, allowed me to observe you exhibiting that same response to myself and others that are trying to engage you in a rational and thoughtful manner.


Jim

[JonF]

Duh .....I posted pages ago several links to several fields of study kid not one claim. Like five links of various studies and research lines including though mediums and outside of mediums even involving cosmological models being researched based on the possibility of the variability of the speed of light- None from creationists sites. did you read all of them? No obviously you didn't

are you always so dense when you are using words such as duh? only shows you don't even know the extent of what is being discussed (or how to use google)

Keep trying though. If you write anything interesting worth responding I'll respond but if not then have fun.

Yup, perhaps. You still did not know that the speed of light in a vacuum is the appropriate value in this discussion. You thought that the slowing of light in a non-vacuum was relevant.

That's worth a big fat duh!!

I will continue to address your many errors as it amuses me. If you can't respond in any coherent fashion that's not my problem.

[JonF]

U- th is radiometric based dating you poor soul not anything called a coral clock - its a radioactive decay clock-

http://www.colorado.edu/GeolSci/ther...(U-Th)_He.html


you are so far back I can barely see you and you have no hope of catching up. Anything else worthy of needing my answer from you? nope. Have a great day

Are you incapable of understanding simple written English or are you just terrified of addressing the real issues?

You still are posting irrelevant "replies".

I wrote that ""Coral is dated by growth rate and U-Th disequilibrium. Both of which are extremely consilient with many other radiometric and non-radiometric dating." I know that U-Th disequilibrium is radiometric. You claimed that coral is dated only by accumulation, and I'm pointing out yet another error of yours. Plus the consilience between the two and other methods is very important

Got anything but blather in response?

[Mikeenders]

Mike, in my first post in this thread (post 16), I raised the issue of decay rates and their dependence on universal constants such as c. You responded to that very post (heavily redacted) a few posts later here: Mike's response to post 16

You are the only one that is absurd. You mentioned the speed of light in the second to last line of a very log post and now link to my response like I acknowledged it in my response. I did not and was primarily concerned with the issue of soft tissue as my response you linked to clearly shows. i don't even remember it being there. I have told you multiple times that I did not bring the speed of light for that reason but at the mention of a discussion of constants changing not breaking the universe. You have maintained the reason I bought it up was for the reason of addressing it to radiometric dating. Its a lie plain and simple. You cannot read minds. cease and desist if you can muster any integrity

So the accusation I am 'lying to myself that I know what is in your heart and mind' is absurd. I simply had the audacity to assume you read the post you responded to. In point of fact, I've not said anything about what is in your heart and mind in this entire discussion, nor have I (unlike you toward me) made any negative insinuations about your faith nor have I derided your behavior

OF course you have that is just slipping and sliding fabrication to cover your fabrication. You point blank told me why I brought something up and was acting

Don't act like you are just realizing this. The potential effect of the speed of light is the only reason the stability of the universal constants even entered this discussion.

Whose that? and whose claiming I am acting because I said that was not the issue why I got into it and whose that telling me no and the only reason was the potential application to radiometric dating (which apparently has you shivering in your bones)? Thats you and no matter how your atheist brethren come to your rescue it won't change thats you.

Sheesh and now you are denying you ever question what was in my heart and mind? I stand by it and you have only now added worse to it - that is an embarassing lack of character for a believer to display. You do your savior no benefit if he is. Since I Had said I did not you are implicitly implying I am lying. Your whole argument is nonsensical and infantile . Because you mentioned something in post 16 and an issue arises where it comes up 200 or so posts later you get to connect the dots because apparently you are so filled with your own (unearned) importance you assumed I had to even remember what you wrote 15 or more page ago. I have asked you in accordance with biblical teaching which is clear and unambiguous not to judge what is in someones head but you have on multiple occassion ignored it. IF someone betrays their own faiths teaching they insinuate negative against heir own adherence. Not judging is BASIC Christianity against another believer. I have no reason to affirm your faith or implicitly deny it. It simply will not factor to me anymore. Perfectly biblical. If you admonish a claimed believer and he will not adhere to biblical teaching you are free to treat him in accordance with his rejection of biblical standards as a non brother whether he is or is not.

Your approach to this entire discussion is one of "If I can't be proven, it can't be known to any degree of certainty"

Repeat your strawman till the cows come home it is still blatant fabrication. I have tied over and over again the the issue of soft tissue to the controversy of scientist that doubted it was even possible not merely said well you can't prove anything for sure. It is the fact that it previously was not considered by many of the world's scientist to be possible that makes it an issue to study . I doubt at this point you will have the integrity to admit it but its been said by me AT LEAST 10-20 times. You are deliberately choosing to ignore no matter how much I remind it to save face for your empty charge of solliphism

Yeah, Jorge likes to say that about me a lot as well.

In that case you have confirmed Jorge has a point and nailed you on the issue of integrity and that apparently then that lack is a pattern with you.

In fact, one thing that does tend to be a common thread with many who argue as you do is that there is not much that will make them angrier and more red faced than a simple and calm discussion that focuses ONLY on the facts and the data.

sorry that little bit of rhetorical flurry will not save you. Only in your twisted morality dreams is saying someone is "acting" and asserting you know the sole reason in their minds "focusing ONLY on the facts and Data". The only one that should be red faced is you for you sin of judging in clear violation of the bible. Me? lol....This aint my first rodeo with your kind. Only thing i do nowadays when i encounter your kind of Christianity is smile to myself , shake my head and make sure I call the person out on it. Mission accomplished.

[Mikeenders]

. You claimed that coral is dated only by accumulation

I made no such claim. if you think because a mod warned about telling people they are lying it is now open season to make up things I never said you can think again - not on my watch while I am here (I've seen that game played by atheists at some christian forums before). this place is not important enough to me to abide that without pointing it out. radiometric dating is not "coral clocks" so when your comrade talked about coral clocks it would have to be using the rate of coral growth. get it - there is no such thing in regular dating in science as "coral clocks". its referred to as radiometric dating - theres radiometric dating of coral and there is the growth rates. Never - not once said there is only growth to date coral. You fabricated and childishly made that claim up.

Second as I have pointed out radiometric dating is not completely different mechanism as you so poorly understand and claim. decay is tied to mechanism at the atomic and sub atomic level. some of it covered in quantum mechanic which is still a relatively young field and filled with some unknowns. rather than the fudge and myth that you have all these totally seperate consilient factors that confirm 80 million year old dates you have nothing but radioactive dating. Nothing else goes back that far to confirm. its merely comparing radioactive decay rates of some elements with radioactive decay rates of others and your and other begs that they are completely unconnected is false. As Ihave said before its presently solid but to claim they are totally unrelated and totally different consilient lines of evidence - nuh huh.

and yes..sorry I will continue to ignore most of your posts like i said unless there is something worth addressing. By your writing and words you are obviously quite young and think everything you type is somehow of value where it isn't and has even been addressed many times in conversations with the grown ups here.

[HMS_Beagle]

You claimed that coral is dated only by accumulation

I made no such claim.

Ahem...

Coral cannot be used as a set clock since the rate at which it accumulates varies

YECs as a rule aren't very bright but you'd think they could at least remember what they said just a day ago.

[Mikeenders]

Ahem...



YECs as a rule aren't very bright but you'd think they could at least remember what they said just a day ago.

Ahem coral itself is not a clock no more than people say rock clocks or meteor clock. Radiometric dating is the clock you silly teen souls. I would not think an atheist would be bright enough to understand that on their own so I understand having to spoon feed you the difference and yes I am now accustomed to your density and know the point will fly over your head regardless - all hail the coral clocks

and alas still no word on whether you can yet read a journal reference on a page :0

[HMS_Beagle]

Ahem coral itself is not a clock no more than people say rock clocks. Radiometric dating is. I would not think an atheist would be bright enough to understand that on their own so I understand having to spoon feed you the difference.

MikeyEC caught in yet another porky while trying to cover his scientific ignorance. There's quite the regular pattern here, eh?

[Mikeenders]

MikeyEC caught in yet another porky while trying to cover his scientific ignorance. There's quite the regular pattern here, eh?

and the young pup beagle tries to use rhetoric yaps to cover for the fact that "coral clocks" as a thing is found almost nowhere in the literature because its radiometric dating thats the clock. Pups are fun watching as they chase their own tail in circles - an um still can't read journal references.

[HMS_Beagle]

and the young pup beagle tries to use rhetoric to cover for the fact that "coral clocks" as a thing is found almost nowhere in the literature because its radiometric dating thats the clock. Pups are fun watching as they chase their own tail in circles - an um still can't read journal references.

LOL! I don't know what's funnier. Watching you stick your foot in your mouth with your scientific ignorance like "corals can't be used for dating" or watching you stick both feet in trying desperately to backpedal on the stupidity.

[Mikeenders]

LOL! I don't know what's funnier

HAHA! I can tell you whats funnier .....lol.. watching you quote me

Coral cannot be used as a set clock since the rate at which it accumulates varies

to now changing it to

"corals can't be used for dating"

To save face over the the new mainline dating claim invention of coral clocks.

Dude get over it. I admit its HILARIOUS you think so but "Coral clocks" are not a thing. You going to date a Meteor next with radioactive methods and call it a meteor clock next?? ROFL......

quick lets do radiometric dating of everything because according to poor jon's wording and reasoning it then becomes a clock. We can have hundreds of new dating system clocks by the morning!.....

Look Ma!! no hands We would have increased the consilience by hundreds in a few hours.

Nobel prizes for all!! lol

[HMS_Beagle]

HAHA! I can tell you whats funnier .....lol.. watching you quote me

to now changing it to

"corals can't be used for dating"

To save face over the the new mainline dating claim invention of coral clocks.

Dude get over it. I admit its HILARIOUS you think so but "Coral clocks" are not a thing. You going to date a Meteor next with radioactive methods and call it a meteor clock next?? ROFL......

quick lets do radiometric dating of everything because according to poor jon's wording and reasoning it then becomes a clock. We can have hundreds of new dating system clocks by the morning!.....

Look Ma!! no hands We would have increased the consilience by hundreds in a few hours.

Nobel prizes for all!! lol

Since you can't falsely accuse people of lying anymore to distract from your scientific ignorance I guess it's time for plan B, the dancing clown act.

Don't worry though. That big red nose and size 48EEEEEEE shoes look good on you.

[Roy]

One of the problems when you get your hand stuck in the cookie jar claiming Coral clocks are a thing is you have to handwave and gesticulate to get yourself out of it - pretending there is something you know that someone else doesn't to save face

there are two main ways coral is involved in dating - growth rate as I said and radiometric dating - radiometric dating is not a coral clock - its a radiometric one

Time for a straw poll. Who else knows another use of corals in geochronology that isn't either growth rate extrapolation or radiometry?

Don't be shy.

[Mikeenders]

Since you can't falsely accuse people of lying anymore to distract from your scientific ignorance I guess it's time for plan B, the dancing clown act.

I never did falsely accuse. I had you especially pretty nailed. Still i have been watching your clown act sooo

That big red nose and size 48EEEEEEE shoes look good on you.

Um dude. Since I am not in the room with you and you are seeing a clown it stands to reason it must be the reflection of your monitor so Guess who that is?

"My goodness martha.. the kid is finally discovering what a mirror is"

;)

[Mikeenders]

Time for a straw poll. Who else knows another use of corals in geochronology that isn't either growth rate extrapolation or radiometry?

Don't be shy.

and Roy desperately tries to save his claim that his coral clocks term is well attested to as a popular term in scientific literature to no avail. lol

to the comedy crew here....you can use almost anything in regard to dating even hair growth but that does not make hair clocks a thing (the things you have to explain to atheists tsk tsk ). Why? you comedy kings - it has to be reliable and predictable enough to be a clock to be called a clock.