Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,20:32) | | First of all you are misrepresenting and/or stereotyping creationists because [creationists] are extremely interested in discussing their belief in creation in scientific and logical ways. |
Run like the wind, Little Bunny!
Because your running is a beautiful real-time demonstration of a creationist's ability to state something that is obviously and patently contradicted by the facts.
Here are the questions you are unwilling to confront "in scientific and logical ways":
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?
Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old? By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction?
Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go.
2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?
--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
|
