Can science prove how old the earth was?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
- Status
Reply to what?
post 52.
Oh.
Perhaps you could tell us which part of your reply to Post #52 was relevant to Ophiolite's Post #60 (and why), and I will consider undeleting it.
The insinuations you made towards JamesR (and by proxy, me)?
The part where you suggested there was no reason to accept evolution?
The part where you suggested your presence to verify the experimental results of each and every peer reviewed paper was somehow significant, or even neccessary for your acceptance of them?
The request you made of JamesR for proof of his allegations that you're nothing more than a creationist troll?
Or the part where you suggested that you didn't believe the biblical account of creationism to be a literal truth?
i have no clue what this has to do with ophiolite
i have no clue what you are talking about.
i never made any such suggestion, i flat out said there is no reason for me to accept evolution.
i never made any such suggestion.
proof he failed to provide BTW.
edit:
i couldn't care less if you undeleted the post or not.
i wanted james and others to know i replied to post 52.
Last edited:
Ophiolite said this:
To which you replied with this:
Which suggests that your response to Post #52 was somehow relevant to this post:
Which is the post Ophiolite was referring to (post #60).
So I provided you a synopsis and implied permission to discuss aspects of that particular moderated post.
Now, at this point you suggest that you don't know how the deleted post was relevant to Ophiolites post, which in and of itself is... I'm not sure quite what, you're effectively using moderator action as a scape-goat to avoid addressing a direct argument.
All of which leads me back to the same point, asking you, directly, to respond to Ophiolites post, post #60, or leave me considering potential consequences.
okay. i'll respond to his post.
"significant risk" are YOUR words ophiolite.
are you actually saying scientist ARE immune to fraud?
trippy,
too bad you don't force your lord and master james r. to post the evidence of HIS accusations.
edit:
i posted this reply under duress, trippy insinuated he was going to take moderator action if i didn't.
there are a number of radiometric methods that can be used to date old and ancient objects.
one of these methods involve the element uranium and uranium has a number of decay series.
two of these are uranium/ thorium and uranium/ lead.
which radiometric method is used for dating the earth?
one of these methods involve the element uranium and uranium has a number of decay series.
two of these are uranium/ thorium and uranium/ lead.
which radiometric method is used for dating the earth?
You will, of course, note that I moderated James' posts as well as yours.
As it happens, I believe that James' 'accusations' are supported on the 'balance of probabilities'.
okay, thanks.
you better thank your lucky stars this "provide evidence" doesn't apply to moderators.
don't ever speak to me again trippy.
yes sir indeed we'll just dance all over that fuckers head, accusing him of being this and that and we don't have to prove shit to ANYBODY.
fuck off.
Last edited:
What would you have me provide proof of?
That I believe that JamesR has demonstrated his assertions on the balance of probabilities?
As it happens, I'm fairly sure that, Ophiolite, James R, Fraggle Rocker, and perhaps even Cap'n K would probably suggest I'm being too leniant on you, in that I have assumed that your questions are in good faith, and even taken the time to answer them, as opposed to any of the other options available to me.
The only thing I have asked you to do, in return, is to address any valid points that have been raised. But this, it seems is too much to ask of you.
they are trippy.
i have no intentions of "snowing" anyboby.
okay.
what valid points have been raised and directed at me that i haven't addressed?
Last edited:
Only I deleted that conversation, because it was offtopic, didn't I?
Seemingly, all we have left is you fuming, and seemingly holding a grudge.
The only part of that conversation that remains is James R's post #52 in which he suggests he believes you're a creationist, which I have left, because as well as that assertion he raises some valid points which have little to do with that assertion, and I warned him, as well as you to leave that particular aspect of the conversation alone.
If that's the case, calm down, take some deep breaths, and respond in a rational manner. Alternatively, keep going the way you're going, and get banned for flaming, baiting, and trolling (and you can consider that an official, on the record warning, if it helps).
- Status