SX and Paradise Lost = Satanic ??

[Statler Waldorf]

I'm still waiting on a reaction to this, I think it would be quite interesting to see how a Young Earth enthusiast can try to deny fact.

I'm not even bothering to go into the ol' "radio-carbon dating and blablabla millions of years old" stuff. My point is practically recent history.

You stated a historical assumption for the age of the civilization. It is not an emperical fact like your painting it, and it will not be until someone directly observes the creation of that civilization and can repeat their findings, sorry. I like how you choose to ignore all my scientific evidence now that it no longer agrees with you.

 

[Swabs]

You stated a historical assumption for the age of the civilization. It is not an emperical fact like your painting it, and it will not be until someone directly observes the creation of that civilization and can repeat their findings, sorry. I like how you choose to ignore all my scientific evidence now that it no longer agrees with you.

You haven't said ANY "scientific evidence"!

 

[Statler Waldorf]

And I'm a little confused because once again you have completely ignored everything i said in favor of keeping them blinders on, so let me re-iterate what i said in bullet points. May be a bit easier for you to follow.

-You believe in a young earth, which you have said you believe to be 6000 years old in this post.

-You've only presented evidence that humankind is no older than 6000 years, which, again, i would dispute but that's a moot point and you'll just ignore the rest of this point and debate that instead. So for the sake of argument, let's say humankind is 6000 years old. According to your beliefs, humanity and the earth came into existance simultaneously. That is an incredibly logical conclusion for me to reach.

-You've presented, as you said, 9 out of 13 points which put the earth at "a few hundred million years old". This is a very far reach from 6000 years old. And to say that your evidence (and ONLY your evidence) says it can't be 4-5 billion means that you are correct is completely flawed in the logic department.

Finally, look more into what scientifically goes into the creation of anything, be it stars, planets, etc. The big bang theory is not a clown car theory, that things exploded out of nothingness already intact. The creation of planets and stars comes from both nebulae and previous supernova... it is not even close to say that it is a creation of matter from non-matter. It is a slow accumulation of matter that has been given off by one means or another (again, the death of a star is a great source) that takes a very long time. I never said anywhere that it was creating matter from non-matter, but it was my mistake to assume you had a basic concept of how celestial bodies are formed.

Read my post dude, this is pointless debating this if you don't read what I posed. The helium concentrations in Zircon Crystals dates the Earth to be 6000 years old, and the visible number of supernovas today suggests the Earth is only 7000 years old. Then you go off saying that I only have evidence that mankind originated 6000 years ago, what does Helium trapped in crystal have to do with mankind?

 

[Statler Waldorf]

You haven't said ANY "scientific evidence"!

Oh yeah I forgot that studying the Earth's Magnetic Field Decay, Helium as a Biproduct of Uranium and Thorium Decay, Supernova numbers, Sediment Deposit in the sea, and Sea Salinity Concentrations have nothing to do with Science, my bad.

 

[noble savage]

Ken, what you said to Noble Savage was pretty much what he was saying... Christians generally say that God created the universe for the sake of man, and i think Noble was saying that is a very difficult concept to accept.

Please correct me if i'm wrong.

Yeah that was what I was getting. I also agree with Ken that until we can observe other life in other reaches of the universe it's anyones bet as to how it would have formed.

 

[Swabs]

Oh yeah I forgot that studying the Earth's Magnetic Field Decay, Helium as a Biproduct of Uranium and Thorium Decay, Supernova numbers, Sediment Deposit in the sea, and Sea Salinity Concentrations have nothing to do with Science, my bad.

You haven't said ANY "scientific evidence"!

All you do is claim to have studied all of these things without giving any specifics or references. For the purposes of this argument all you've said can be considered opinion, as you have yet to genuinely provide support for your points.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

All you do is claim to have studied all of these things without giving any specifics or references. For the purposes of this argument all you've said can be considered opinion, as you have yet to genuinely provide support for your points.

Scheffler, H. and Elsasser, H., Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352–353, 401–413.
D. Zaritsky, H-W. Rix, and M. Rieke, Inner spiral structure of the galaxy M51, Nature 364:313–315 (July 22, 1993).
Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175–184, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.
Steidl, P. F., Planets, comets, and asteroids, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73-106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), order from http://www.creationresearch.org/.
Whipple, F. L., Background of modern comet theory, Nature 263:15–19 (2 September 1976). Levison, H. F. et al. See also: The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science 296:2212–2215 (21 June 2002).
Milliman, John D. and James P. M. Syvitski, Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers, The Journal of Geology, vol. 100, pp. 525–544 (1992).
Hay, W. W., et al., Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93(B12):14,933–14,940 (10 December 1988).
Meybeck, M., Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans, Revue de Géologie Dynamique et de Géographie Physique 21(3):215 (1979).
Sayles, F. L. and P. C. Mangelsdorf, Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 43:767–779 (1979).
Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 17–33, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.
Nevins, S., [Austin, S. A.], Evolution: the oceans say no!, Impact No. 8 (Nov. 1973) Institute for Creation Research.
Humphreys, D. R., The earth’s magnetic field is still losing energy, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 39(1):3–13, June 2002. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm.
Humphreys, D. R., Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 113–126, out of print but contact http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm for help in locating copies.
Coe, R. S., M. Prévot, and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374:687–92 (20 April 1995).
Humphreys, D. R., Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 129–142, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.
Austin, S. A. and J. D. Morris, Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 3–15, out of print, contact http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm for help in locating copies.
Gibbons A., Calibrating the mitochondrial clock, Science 279:28–29 (2 January 1998).
Cherfas, J., Ancient DNA: still busy after death, Science 253:1354–1356 (20 September 1991). Cano, R. J., H. N. Poinar, N. J. Pieniazek, A. Acra, and G. O. Poinar, Jr. Amplification and sequencing of DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil, Nature 363:536–8 (10 June 1993). Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Pääbo, Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans, Cell 90:19–30 (Jul 11, 1997). Lindahl, T, Unlocking nature’s ancient secrets, Nature 413:358–359 (27 September 2001).
Vreeland, R. H.,W. D. Rosenzweig, and D. W. Powers, Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407:897–900 (19 October 2000).
Schweitzer, M., J. L. Wittmeyer, J. R. Horner, and J. K. Toporski, Soft-Tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, Science 207:1952–1955 (25 March 2005).
Gentry, R. V., Radioactive halos, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23:347–362 (1973).
Gentry, R. V. , W. H. Christie, D. H. Smith, J. F. Emery, S. A. Reynolds, R. Walker, S. S. Christy, and P. A. Gentry, Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification, Science 194:315–318 (15 October 1976).
Gentry, R. V., Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective, Science 184:62–66 (5 April 1974).
Snelling, A. A. and M. H. Armitage, Radiohalos—a tale of three granitic plutons, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 243–267, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm. Also archived on the ICR website at ICCRADIOHALOS-AASandMA.pdf.
Gentry, R. V., G. L. Glish, and E. H. McBay, Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste containment, Geophysical Research Letters 9(10):1129–1130 (October 1982).
Humphreys, D. R, et al., Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(1):1–16 (June 2004). See archived article on following page of the CRS website: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm.
Baumgardner, J. R., et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 127–142. Archived at http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf. See poster presented to American Geophysical Union, Dec. 2003, AGUC-14_Poster_Baumgardner.pdf.
McDougall, I., F. H. Brown, and J. G. Fleagle, Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia, Nature 433(7027):733–736 (17 February 2005).
Deevey, E. S., The human population, Scientific American 203:194–204 (September 1960).
Marshack, A., Exploring the mind of Ice Age man, National Geographic 147:64–89 (January 1975).
Dritt, J. O., Man’s earliest beginnings: discrepancies in evolutionary timetables, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 73–78, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.


References for the topics I mentioned. I think it will be a good idea from now on that everyone has to cite references when debating since apparently I have to.

 

[noble savage]

Read my post dude, this is pointless debating this if you don't read what I posed. The helium concentrations in Zircon Crystals dates the Earth to be 6000 years old, and the visible number of supernovas today suggests the Earth is only 7000 years old. Then you go off saying that I only have evidence that mankind originated 6000 years ago, what does Helium trapped in crystal have to do with mankind?

What!? There is Uranium and Thorium in Zircon that was discovered in West Australia that dated the Earth to 4.404 billion years. Who the hell would try to carbon date Helium? Last time I checked it doesn't decay. The Uranium and Zircon does. By measuring what percent decays into lead.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Read my post dude, this is pointless debating this if you don't read what I posed. The helium concentrations in Zircon Crystals dates the Earth to be 6000 years old, and the visible number of supernovas today suggests the Earth is only 7000 years old. Then you go off saying that I only have evidence that mankind originated 6000 years ago, what does Helium trapped in crystal have to do with mankind?

It doesn't do any good to debate if you don't read what you yourself wrote...

Here is some examples of evidence collected that debunks the 4 billion year old number and gives numbers far closer to an actual 6000 year old earth. If you would like me to elaborate on any of them just let me know. If you also are the type who need citations for this let me know. I will give the concept and then how old it indicates the earth is.


Galaxies winding up far to quickly- few hundred million years
The number of visible supernova remainant- 7000 years
Comet Disintegration- 10,000 years
Sediment Accumulation on sea floor- 12 million years
Sea Salinity dating method- 62 million years
Earth's magnetic field decay- 20,000 years old
Strata deformation- less than 100,000
Biological Material Decay- 10,000 years old
Helium concentrations in Ziricon Crystals- 6000 years
Carbon 14 found in Deep Geologic Strata- Less than 100,000 years
Stone age skeltons found- less than 10,000 years
Agricultural practices by man- 6000 years
Written history by man- less than 5000 years


Looks like those numbers are far closer to my 6000 years than your guys' 4billion plus.

Fucking dumbass, seriously. I can only assume you copied and pasted this from another source, hence you did nothing to look into the sources, just took it at face value as something to back up your source. AWWW SUNOVABITCH, that TOTALLY destroys your argument agains someone taking proven or backed up scientific data from a published journal as fact! GODDAMN!

 

[Statler Waldorf]

What!? There is Uranium and Thorium in Zircon that was discovered in West Australia that dated the Earth to 4.404 billion years. Who the hell would try to carbon date Helium? Last time I checked it doesn't decay. The Uranium and Zircon does. By measuring what percent decays into lead.

It's the helium in the crystal that is the key. And nobody is carbon dating helium, not possible. But Ascribing to the principle of Uniformitariunism (which all old Earth Scientists do) you can use the concentrations of Helium in the crystal to extropolate the amount of time the Uranium and Thorium have been decaying. No more than 7000 years.

"Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously. "

 

[Statler Waldorf]

It doesn't do any good to debate if you don't read what you yourself wrote...


Fucking dumbass, seriously. I can only assume you copied and pasted this from another source, hence you did nothing to look into the sources, just took it at face value as something to back up your source. AWWW SUNOVABITCH, that TOTALLY destroys your argument agains someone taking proven or backed up scientific data from a published journal as fact! GODDAMN!

Nope those were not copy and pasted, I typed those because I have articles from peer-reviewed journals dealing with each of those topics and their dating implications. Who's the dumbass now? See my reference list for fruther details if you want to do some independent research of your own.

 

[noble savage]

That's it, I can't do this anymore. I'm out. I never thought I would see the day when I had to defend the well excepted fact that the earth is 4.6 billion with someone who uses old creationist resources as defense.

Seriously, I don't drink, but I need a few shots of Jack Daniels.

 

[Wander]

Scheffler, H. and Elsasser, H., Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352–353, 401–413.
D. Zaritsky, H-W. Rix, and M. Rieke, Inner spiral structure of the galaxy M51, Nature 364:313–315 (July 22, 1993).
Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175–184, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.
Steidl, P. F., Planets, comets, and asteroids, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73-106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), order from http://www.creationresearch.org/.
Whipple, F. L., Background of modern comet theory, Nature 263:15–19 (2 September 1976). Levison, H. F. et al. See also: The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science 296:2212–2215 (21 June 2002).
Milliman, John D. and James P. M. Syvitski, Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers, The Journal of Geology, vol. 100, pp. 525–544 (1992).
Hay, W. W., et al., Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93(B12):14,933–14,940 (10 December 1988).
Meybeck, M., Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans, Revue de Géologie Dynamique et de Géographie Physique 21(3):215 (1979).
Sayles, F. L. and P. C. Mangelsdorf, Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 43:767–779 (1979).
Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 17–33, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.
Nevins, S., [Austin, S. A.], Evolution: the oceans say no!, Impact No. 8 (Nov. 1973) Institute for Creation Research.
Humphreys, D. R., The earth’s magnetic field is still losing energy, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 39(1):3–13, June 2002. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm.
Humphreys, D. R., Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 113–126, out of print but contact http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm for help in locating copies.
Coe, R. S., M. Prévot, and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374:687–92 (20 April 1995).
Humphreys, D. R., Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 129–142, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.
Austin, S. A. and J. D. Morris, Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 3–15, out of print, contact http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm for help in locating copies.
Gibbons A., Calibrating the mitochondrial clock, Science 279:28–29 (2 January 1998).
Cherfas, J., Ancient DNA: still busy after death, Science 253:1354–1356 (20 September 1991). Cano, R. J., H. N. Poinar, N. J. Pieniazek, A. Acra, and G. O. Poinar, Jr. Amplification and sequencing of DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil, Nature 363:536–8 (10 June 1993). Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Pääbo, Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans, Cell 90:19–30 (Jul 11, 1997). Lindahl, T, Unlocking nature’s ancient secrets, Nature 413:358–359 (27 September 2001).
Vreeland, R. H.,W. D. Rosenzweig, and D. W. Powers, Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407:897–900 (19 October 2000).
Schweitzer, M., J. L. Wittmeyer, J. R. Horner, and J. K. Toporski, Soft-Tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, Science 207:1952–1955 (25 March 2005).
Gentry, R. V., Radioactive halos, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23:347–362 (1973).
Gentry, R. V. , W. H. Christie, D. H. Smith, J. F. Emery, S. A. Reynolds, R. Walker, S. S. Christy, and P. A. Gentry, Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification, Science 194:315–318 (15 October 1976).
Gentry, R. V., Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective, Science 184:62–66 (5 April 1974).
Snelling, A. A. and M. H. Armitage, Radiohalos—a tale of three granitic plutons, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 243–267, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm. Also archived on the ICR website at ICCRADIOHALOS-AASandMA.pdf.
Gentry, R. V., G. L. Glish, and E. H. McBay, Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste containment, Geophysical Research Letters 9(10):1129–1130 (October 1982).
Humphreys, D. R, et al., Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(1):1–16 (June 2004). See archived article on following page of the CRS website: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm.
Baumgardner, J. R., et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 127–142. Archived at http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf. See poster presented to American Geophysical Union, Dec. 2003, AGUC-14_Poster_Baumgardner.pdf.
McDougall, I., F. H. Brown, and J. G. Fleagle, Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia, Nature 433(7027):733–736 (17 February 2005).
Deevey, E. S., The human population, Scientific American 203:194–204 (September 1960).
Marshack, A., Exploring the mind of Ice Age man, National Geographic 147:64–89 (January 1975).
Dritt, J. O., Man’s earliest beginnings: discrepancies in evolutionary timetables, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 73–78, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.


References for the topics I mentioned. I think it will be a good idea from now on that everyone has to cite references when debating since apparently I have to.

What a huge pile of shit to look into.

 

[Swabs]

So now you are using research that states the Earth could be up to 62million years old to try and support your belief that the earth is 6000 years old? Wow that's logical.


Not to mention the fact that Helium dispertion rates of 6000 years show that those specific helium atoms from those Zircons that were mined from ONE location, are about 6000 years old..... And that shows that the entire Earth is 6000 years old how? It doesn't. Unless they can prove that those zircons were formed when the Earth was formed then their argument is pointless. That's pretty much exactly the same as someone saying "I found some atoms that are 1000 years old! The earth must be 1000 years old!!"

 

[Statler Waldorf]

That's it, I can't do this anymore. I'm out. I never thought I would see the day when I had to defend the well excepted fact that the earth is 4.6 billion with someone who uses old creationist resources as defense.

Seriously, I don't drink, but I need a few shots of Jack Daniels.

Wow, I didn't realize "National Geographic" was a creationist reference. So typical of that side of the fence. I have presented more evidence, more sources than anyone else on here and somehow I am the irrational one. If you guys ever actually did any of your own reading instead of blindly accepting what you're force-fed by modern textbooks you'd realize my argument has far more strength and merit than the old-earth one. No wonder nobody on here has even tried to debate this using citations or references, if it was such a widely accepted "fact" that the earth is so old I would think debating this topic would be easy for you guys. I have sat here and watched you all use Darwinian referencs to back your points about evolution, so of course a portion of my sources are going to be young-earth sources, I would hope you guys would use old-earth sources to backup your argument lol. Though I have used many "mainstream" sources as well, you guys just know I've got you by the balls on this one.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

So now you are using research that states the Earth could be up to 62million years old to try and support your belief that the earth is 6000 years old? Wow that's logical.


Not to mention the fact that Helium dispertion rates of 6000 years show that those specific helium atoms from those Zircons that were mined from ONE location, are about 6000 years old..... And that shows that the entire Earth is 6000 years old how? It doesn't. Unless they can prove that those zircons were formed when the Earth was formed then their argument is pointless. That's pretty much exactly the same as someone saying "I found some atoms that are 1000 years old! The earth must be 1000 years old!!"

Lol, all matter is the age of the Earth, you can't go out and just buy yourself some matter at the drugstore. I am not sure where you are making these atoms at but I would love to see it done. Oh yeah and do you have any references to back your argument up? I supplied mine....waiting.....

 

[Statler Waldorf]

So now you are using research that states the Earth could be up to 62million years old to try and support your belief that the earth is 6000 years old? Wow that's logical.


Not to mention the fact that Helium dispertion rates of 6000 years show that those specific helium atoms from those Zircons that were mined from ONE location, are about 6000 years old..... And that shows that the entire Earth is 6000 years old how? It doesn't. Unless they can prove that those zircons were formed when the Earth was formed then their argument is pointless. That's pretty much exactly the same as someone saying "I found some atoms that are 1000 years old! The earth must be 1000 years old!!"

If you want better clearification maybe you should read the article in the Journal of Geophysical Research as I have, or are you too worried about it's implications?

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Nope those were not copy and pasted, I typed those because I have articles from peer-reviewed journals dealing with each of those topics and their dating implications. Who's the dumbass now? See my reference list for fruther details if you want to do some independent research of your own.

So you are admitting to WILLFULLY ignoring the point i'm making because you chose to ascribe my post to a figure that has nothing to do what i was actually talking about? Again, i point out that you typed out (and i bolded for ease of reference):

Agricultural practices by man- 6000 years

Thus making my point incredibly accurate. So your entire post that says this:

The helium concentrations in Zircon Crystals dates the Earth to be 6000 years old, and the visible number of supernovas today suggests the Earth is only 7000 years old. Then you go off saying that I only have evidence that mankind originated 6000 years ago, what does Helium trapped in crystal have to do with mankind?

...is based on your own ignorance. What i was saying had absolutely nothing to do with helium, crystals, any of that. It had to do with the point that YOU YOURSELF are saying that the oldest human agricultural practices are 6000 years old. I really don't know how to make myself any more clear. You are willfully blind and ignorant to so many points being presented that it's not even a debate.

You're not even arguing in favor of your position. You're exploiting loopholes in language presented to you in any way possible to show how "wrong" our points are when in fact they're quite valid. You have not one single reputable source to back up anything you say, your logic stops at "you guys are wrong so I must be right". You're a fraud, no more and no less.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

So you are admitting to WILLFULLY ignoring the point i'm making because you chose to ascribe my post to a figure that has nothing to do what i was actually talking about? Again, i point out that you typed out (and i bolded for ease of reference):

Agricultural practices by man- 6000 years

Thus making my point incredibly accurate. So your entire post that says this:



...is based on your own ignorance. What i was saying had absolutely nothing to do with helium, crystals, any of that. It had to do with the point that YOU YOURSELF are saying that the oldest human agricultural practices are 6000 years old. I really don't know how to make myself any more clear. You are willfully blind and ignorant to so many points being presented that it's not even a debate.

You're not even arguing in favor of your position. You're exploiting loopholes in language presented to you in any way possible to show how "wrong" our points are when in fact they're quite valid. You have not one single reputable source to back up anything you say, your logic stops at "you guys are wrong so I must be right". You're a fraud, no more and no less.

NOt a single reputable sources? The Journal of Geophyiscal Research and National Geographic are both far more credible than anything you have referenced. As for your humankind argument I am a bit confused as to what you are getting at. I presented topics that pointed to the origin of man at 6000 years ago AND the orgin of the Earth (the helium one) at 6000 years ago. Both of of which are exactly what my original statement was, the Earth and Man originated within a couple days of eachother 6000 years ago. No idea why you are not getting that.

 

[noble savage]

You're a fraud, no more and no less.

Which is why I'm out of this after this post.

You can cite any "reference" you want, but it doesn't make it correct. You're citing resources from articles, and I stress the word articles, from the 60s and 70s.