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

[Mikeenders]

Looks like the new is preparing his exit strategy. He can't deal with the evidence so he blusters and declares himself the winner before bailing out. It's nothing that we haven't seen from craven Creationists a thousand times before.

Never play poker kid. You have a big tell. Whenever you get your foot in your mouth and get it stuck (like with your math blunders) you go to images to try and hand wave your way out.

I'm still here waiting to hear some more how 3.1 is the exact number for PI.

How can we move on so quick to something else with that Nobel prize worthy discovery here at Tweb?? Its revolutionary. The ramifications are earth moving (regardless of age)

tell us more ....3.1 eh? accurate and EXACT.... brilliant

LOL

[HMS_Beagle]

Never play poker kid. You have a big tell.

Your scientific knowledge could fit into a thimble with plenty of room left for both your testicles.

Here's the evidence you keep running from one more time

1. Milankovitch cycles. These known cycles involving the planet's precession rate leave distinct geologic signatures every 26,000 years. These markers can be used to date events back over 20 million years that also closely match the radiometric dates.

Milankovitch cycles

2. Plate tectonics / continental drift. Using GPS we can measure plate drift rate very accurately. Extrapolating back in time gives us a date for the separation of the continents, say Africa and South America, which closely matches radiometric dates for the split approx. 140 MYA

Pangaea breakup

3. Age of the solar system: The sun's age can be estimated based on the modeling of helioseismic measurements - solar earth quakes. Extrapolating for measured results gives a solar age of approx 4.57 billion years which is in close agreement with the radiometric dating of the oldest meteorites.

The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS

It will still be here when all that's left of you is your brown skid marks.

[Mikeenders]

Your scientific knowledge could fit into a thimble with plenty of room left for both your testicles.

Prophet Mike right again (was there ever any doubt). Rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric thats all he got. tsk tsk

Lets hear more about PI really being EXACTLY 3.1

I already sunk your killer coral clock (lol) and you can't even answer the three points raised that sunk it as no real clock so you want to run to something else. It was your choice to present that. In the adult world you deal with the criticisms raised against your point not beg "mama make him stop and move on to something else he's making me qwieey".

ROFL....with blunder after blunder in basic maths saying I need an exit strategy is like claiming the team walking off the floor is beaten because the Bball score is 99-24 in their favor and you bore their first team. I am an OEC who just happens to think YEC s have one point. Put my present OEC views straight up against your atheist garbage and you would be crying for your momma even more than you are now.

[HMS_Beagle]

Prophet Mike right again (was there ever any doubt). Rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric thats all he got. tsk tsk

The evidence is still here waiting for you Mikey. Go wash out your shorts and try again.

[rwatts]

(while not surprisingly at this point using the name God in vain)

I think you need an outsider, an atheist to judge this.

Yes, technically, if you wish to be picky, Jim did take the name of God in vain. But through your behaviour you make God look like a donkey. Try Matt 7:20 then read on to verses 21-23.

[Yttrium]

longer decimals numbers may be reported in shorter placement form for brevity in articles or ahem tables.

...

Strange, I don't remember ever seeing that happen. And I've been around a fairly long time. And I'm a bit of a math geek, with a MS in math. When a decimal is shortened in an article or table, it's normally rounded off. Simply cutting off the decimal at a certain point would be confusing.

Just felt a need to comment. I'll let you all get back to the pointless bickering over radiometric dating.

[HMS_Beagle]

...

Strange, I don't remember ever seeing that happen. And I've been around a fairly long time. And I'm a bit of a math geek, with a MS in math. When a decimal is shortened in an article or table, it's normally rounded off. Simply cutting off the decimal at a certain point would be confusing.

Which is why it's not done. Mikey here stuck his foot in his mouth with that silly claim and has been squirming up a storm to try and extricate it.

[Mikeenders]

I think you need an outsider, an atheist to judge this.

Yes, Jim did take the name of God in vain. But through your behaviour you make God look like a donkey. Try Matt 7:20 then read on to verses 21-23.

An atheist chimes in because his comrades have been shown to lack in basic maths quoting scripture....LOL the hilarity continues.

P.S. Go read Matthew 23 (and a few passages in Acts). this idea that Christians always have to tip toe around you is your brand of Christianity not Gods. Many of you atheists run around from christian forum to christian forum laughing and harassing my brothers and sisters in Christ calling them stupid and ignorant and as soon as you tell and demonstrate to them you are what yuu call them you are all offended and quoting passages you don't even believe in in pure hypocrisy. Theres probably a few things I would change in responding in a few posts but not anywhere near as much as you would claim I should.

Read the chapter I just quoted.

P.S. Jim did waaay more than that or we would have no issues

[Mikeenders]

...

Strange, I don't remember ever seeing that happen. And I've been around a fairly long time. And I'm a bit of a math geek, with a MS in math. When a decimal is shortened in an article or table, it's normally rounded off. Simply cutting off the decimal at a certain point would be confusing.
.

Then you need to read more - its done all the time with pi - none of the sources being discusssed are scientific journals

If people wish to quibble about that its of no importance whatsoever. I was the first to mention rounding. IF you round a number its no longer an exact representation its an approximate. Saying it is exact was and forever will be an epic fail

[HMS_Beagle]

Then you need to read more - its done all the time with pi - none of the sources being discusssed are scientific journals

Just cutting off the decimals is never done with Pi. Rounding off is. You're probably confused because the first three digits of Pi after the decimal are below 5 so the number is rounded down. No one writes Pi as "3.141" or "3.1415".

What an eejit.

[Yttrium]

Then you need to read more - its done all the time with pi - none of the sources being discusssed are scientific journals

Really? That's very interesting. Could you cite some examples? We really must track down and smite these heretics. Cutting off the decimal instead of rounding is like mixing up "your" and "you're". It's just bad form, you know.

[Mikeenders]

Which is why it's not done. Mikey here stuck his foot in his mouth with that silly claim and has been squirming up a storm to try and extricate it.

I can almost see your desperate little hands typing trying desperately to hand wave away from the fact that even if you go to rounding ITS EVEN MORE SO NOT AN EXACT REPRESENTATION


ROFL..........Poor soul. Like I said nothing....nada....zip ......will save you....Your two feet and your hand stuck in your mouth like your two partners in crimes is forever stuck

[HMS_Beagle]

Really? That's very interesting. Could you cite some examples? We really must track down and smite these heretics. Cutting off the decimal instead of rounding is like mixing up "your" and "you're". It's just bad form, you know.

Sadly Mikey doesn't know. But he's got one of the worst cases of Dunning Kruger ever seen around here so the thinks he knows.

Go ahead Mikey. Show us all those examples of where people just cut off the decimal instead of rounding up when rounding up was called for.

[Mikeenders]

Really? That's very interesting. Could you cite some examples? We really must track down and smite these heretics. Cutting off the decimal instead of rounding is like mixing up "your" and "you're". It's just bad form, you know.

Why change from the heretics I am presently smiting? A heretic in the hand is worth two in the bush so I am more interested in how you are going to round a number and then claim its an exact non approximation. Got any thoughts on that? because I am beginning to think we have a fourth for the comedy hour that PI would exactly be represented by 3.1.

IF you get in now I think with four you will get even a bigger discount in the maths class.

Shucks in your first day in class as they do in lots of basic maths classes you will start out with 3.14

[HMS_Beagle]

Why change from the heretics I am presently smiting? A heretic in the hand is worth two in the bush so I am more interested in how you are going to round a number and then claim its an exact representation. Got any thoughts on that? because I am beginning to think we have a fourth for the comedy hour that PI would exactly be represented by 3.1.

Psst..hey Mikey...

If you go out in the morning and meet a clown, you've met a clown.

if you go out and everyone you meet is a clown, the reality is you're the clown.

Especially since you're the only one who mentioned Pi or claimed that 3.1 was being touted as an exact representation.