Of course you don't, but it's ok. We're all still trying to figure it out, Chazster

mmm "uranium-lead radiometric dating"

I'll see what I can find on it, but it might be faster if you provide a link and / or some information you might know about it.

BY THE WAY

Welcome to the land beyond the looking glass.

Oh I bet that made you feel all manly.......

You're perfectly correct. The entire carbon-15 argument is a dinosaur argument itself. It was brought up years ago by religious fundamentalists, and put to rest by the scientific communitity.

It was a misunderstanding that science relies entirely on carbon-14 dating in the first first place. Science has used many tools to determine the ages of these fossils and they have confirmed the figures.

Radiometric dating methods just help to better organize the picture in greater detail. Even if they were off in their absolute values they would still be valuable for their relative information of which bones are older and which are newer.

You'll only find these kinds of topics on Internet threads posted by religious fundamentalists who have no compelling reasons to back up their own mythologies so they attempt to divert attention away from that by making asburd accusations toward science.

Who's going to believe that an all-powerful God is at war with a fallen angel with a pointed tail and horns?

Who's going to believe that an all-loving God asked people to stone each other?

Who's going to believe that an all-wise God can only solve problems using violent methods and blood sacrifices?

Clearly they must divert attention somewhere else.

So the point their figure at science and try to claim, "Look! It's undependable, the bible must be true!!!"

It's lame logic anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating

Just some basic info. Don't know that much about it, but if you remember chemistry they talked about half life. How long it takes for have of something to decay. The longer the halflife the longer you can record its decay and the older things you can date.

Personally I believe there is a God, but more along the lines of the clock maker theory. He created everything and the laws of nature and let them work themselves out. Big Bang, evolution, all this can hold true in the clock maker theory.

Yes Red, it's true. The carbon-14 arguments are almost as acient as the dinosaurs themselves. This has been totally explained by the scientific community already. It's a non-issue.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=richard+dawkins&emb=0#q=enemys%20of%20reason&emb=0

or

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=richard+dawkins&emb=0#q=richard%20dawkins&emb=0

well if this isnt enough then buy a book

Absolutely.

The truths that we have discovered about the universe do not in any way deny the existence of a supreme creator. There are many religions that embrace a spiritual view of the observed reality.

The only religions that they conflict with this are those religions that try to use God as a basis for supporting judgmental bigotry and spreading prejudice hatred toward 'non-believers'.

IMHO the world can do without those kind of negative religions anyway. I'm glad they turned out to be false pictures of God.

Well, I tend to disagree with my church on certain things, but thats my God given free will. I stick to it though because I like the basic ideals of the church. I think of it more as a place of learning, and then you decide what to do with the knowledge. To take it as it is or come up with your own conclusions.

yeah right, kinfg abra to the rescue.

we figured it out, redy. not to worry..




you clowns are insane.

you aact like you have a precious secret.

you are delusional puppies.


that is all there is to it.

you have no proof Of ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT YOU WANT TO RUN FROM GOD !!!!!!


KEEP DANCING KIDS.

you are hilarious.

Chazster wrote in responce to Wouldee


I wrote in responce to Chazster


Abra wrote


I think you misunderstood, Abra. But thanks for the information.

Mt. St. Helens
The new lava dome (dacite) from the at Mount St. Helens was formed in 1986. In 1997 five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subjected to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, all from eleven year old rock. HELLO 11 YEAR OLD ROCK!

We know when this dome formed. When we date rock of known age we test the claims and we see obvious failures. But, when we date rock of unknown age, we are assured that the results are accurate.

NEED MORE!!!!

Why methods in general are inaccurate


I admit this is a very beautiful theory. This would seem to imply that the problem of radiometric dating has been solved, and that there are no anomalies. So if we take a lava flow and date several minerals for which one knows the daughter element is excluded, we should always get the exact same date, and it should agree with the accepted age of the geological period. Is this true? I doubt it very much. If the radiometric dating problem has been solved in this manner, then why do we need isochrons, which are claimed to be more accurate?

The same question could be asked in general of minerals that are thought to yield good dates. Mica is thought to exclude Sr, so it should yield good Rb-Sr dates. But are dates from mica always accepted, and do they always agree with the age of their geologic period? I suspect not.

Indeed, there are a number of conditions on the reliability of radiometric dating. For example, for K-Ar dating, we have the following requirements:

For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:

1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.

2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.

3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.

4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.

"But what about the radiometric dating methods? The earth is supposed to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth's igneous rocks. The answer is that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially)."

"All of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them. These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The assumed resettings are referred to as `metamorphic events' or `second' or `third events.' "

And again,

"It is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have greatly changed isotopic ratios or the rates at some time in the past."

It is known that neutrinos interact with atomic nucleii, so a larger density of neutrinos could have sped up radioactive decay and made matter look old in a hurry. Some more quotes from the same source:

a. In the lead-uranium systems both uranium and lead can migrate easily in some rocks, and lead volatilizes and escapes as a vapor at relatively low temperatures. It has been suggested that free neutrons could transform Pb-206 first to Pb-207 and then to Pb-208, thus tending to reset the clocks and throw thorium-lead and uranium-lead clocks completely off, even to the point of wiping out geological time. Furthermore, there is still disagreement of 15 percent between the two preferred values for the U-238 decay constant.

b. In the potassium/argon system argon is a gas which can escape from or migrate through the rocks. Potassium volatilizes easily, is easily leached by water, and can migrate through the rocks under certain conditions. Furthermore, the value of the decay constant is still disputed, although the scientific community seems to be approaching agreement. Historically, the decay constants used for the various radiometric dating systems have been adjusted to obtain agreement between the results obtained. In the potassium/argon system another adjustable "constant" called the branching ratio is also not accurately known and is adjusted to give acceptable results.

Argon-40, the daughter substance, makes up about one percent of the atmosphere, which is therefore a possible source of contamination. This is corrected for by comparing the ratio argon-40/argon-36 in the rock with that in the atmosphere. However, since it is possible for argon-36 to be formed in the rocks by cosmic radiation, the correction may also be in error. Argon from the environment may be trapped in magma by pressure and rapid cooling to give very high erroneous age results. In view of these and other problems it is hardly surprising that the potassium/argon method can yield highly variable results, even among different minerals in the same rock.

c. In the strontium/rubidium system the strontium-87 daughter atoms are very plentiful in the earth's crust. Rubidium-87 parent atoms can be leached out of the rock by water or volatilized by heat.

All of these special problems as well as others can produce contradictory and erroneous results for the various radiometric dating systems.

So we have a number of mechanisms that can introduce errors in radiometric dates. Heating can cause argon to leave a rock and make it look younger. In general, if lava was heated after the initial flow, it can yield an age that is too young. If the minerals in the lava did not melt with the lava, one can obtain an age that is too old. Leaching can also occur; this involves water circulating in rock that can cause parent and daughter elements to enter or leave the rock and change the radiometric age.

Thus it is easy to rationalize any date that is obtained. If a date is too old, one can say that the mineral did not melt with the lava. (Maybe it got included from surrounding rock as the lava flowed upward.) If the date is too young, one can say that there was a later heating event. One can also hypothesize that leaching occurred.

But then it is claimed that we can detect leaching and heating. But how can we know that this claim is true, without knowing the history of rocks and knowing whether they have in fact experienced later heating or leaching?

The problems are compounded because many of the parent and daughter substances are mobile, to some extent. I believe that all parent substances are water soluble, and many of the daughter products as well. A few sources have said that Sr is mobile in rock to some extent. This could cause trouble for Rb-Sr dating. In fact, some sources say that Sr and Ar have similar mobilities in rock, and Ar is very mobile.

Especially the gaseous radioactive decay byproducts such as argon, radon, and helium are mobile in rock. So if a rock has tiny cracks permitting gas to enter or escape or permitting the flow of water, the radiometric ages could be changed substantially even without the rock ever melting or mixing.

For example, suppose that 1/300,000 of the argon in a rock escapes in one day. Then in 1000 years the rock will have less than 1/(2.7) of its original argon. In 5000 years the rock will have less than 1/(2.7^5) of its original argon. Now, there is probably not much argon in a rock to start with. So the loss of a tiny amount of argon can have significant effects over long time periods. A loss of argon would make the rock look younger.

In a similar way, argon could enter the rock from the air or from surrounding rocks and make it look older. And this can also happen by water flowing through the rock through tiny cracks, dissolving parent and daughter elements. It would be difficult to measure the tiny changes in concentration that would suffice to make large changes in the radiometric ages over long time periods.

I also question the assertion that argon, for example, is excluded from certain minerals when they crystallize and never enters later on. Geologists often say that ages that are too old are due to excess argon. So it must be possible for that excess argon to get in, even though the crystal is supposed to exclude it. Here is one such reference, although this is to a mineral that does not exclude argon:

"As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew. Under favourable circumstances the isochron method may be helpful, but tests by other techniques may be required. For example, the rubidium-strontium method would give a valid isotopic age of the biotite sample with inherited argon."

[from the Online Encyclopedia Britannica article, "Geochronology: The Interpretation and Dating of the Geologic Record, Potassium-argon methods."]

Another problem is that the crystal structure typically has imperfections and impurities. For example, different kinds of quartz have different colors due to various impurities that are included but not part of the repetitive unit of the quartz crystal. So even if the crystal excludes the daughter element, it could be present in impurities. Thus crystals, as they form, may have tiny imperfections that accept parent and daughter products in the same ratios as they occur in the lava, so one can inherit ages from the lava into minerals in this way. It is also possible that parent and daughter elements could be present in boundaries between regular crystal domains. I don't know how we can be sure that a crystal will exclude argon or other daughter substances except by growing it in the laboratory under many conditions.

There can also be argon or other daughter products added from the air or from other rocks. One could say that we can detect whether the daughter is embedded in the crystal structure or not. But this would require an atom by atom analysis, which I do not believe is practical.

Why K-Ar dating is inaccurate

Since K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating is one of the most prevalent techniques, some special commentary about it is in order. Potassium is about 2.5 percent of the earth's crust. About 1/10,000 of potassium is K40, which decays into Ar40 with a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Actually, only about 1/8 of the potassium 40 decays to argon, and the rest decays to calcium. Thus after n half-lives, (1/2)^n of the original potassium 40 will remain. Of the 1 - (1/2)^n which has decayed, about 7/8 will have decayed into calcium, and the remaining 1/8 will have decayed into argon 40. Argon is about 3.6 x 10 ^ -6 of the earth's crust. We can assume, then, that the magma is probably about 1/40 potassium and about 1/400,000 K40. After 570 million years, about 26 percent of this potassium will have decayed, so that there will be about 1/3 as much decay product as K40. About 1/8 of the decay product will be Argon 40, so there will be about 1/24 as much argon 40 as K40. Thus we should expect about 1/9,600,000 of a rock having an average concentration of potassium, to be argon, if the rock is really 570 million years old. This is about one ten millionth of the mass of the rock, a very tiny percentage. And yet, with a large amount of argon in the air and also filtering up from rocks below, and with excess argon in lava, with argon and potassium water soluble, and argon mobile in rock, we are still expecting this wisp of argon to tell us how old the rock is! The percentage of Ar40 is even less for younger rocks. For example, it would be about one in 100 million for rocks in the vicinity of 57 million years old.

To get one part in 10 million of argon in a rock in a thousand years, we would only need to get one part in 10 billion entering the rock each year. This would be less than one part in a trillion entering the rock each day, on the average. This would suffice to give a rock having an average concentration of potassium, a computed potassium-argon age of over 500 million years!

We can also consider the average abundance of argon in the crust. If we assume that a rock has 1/400,000 K40, that is, 2.5 x 10 ^ -6 K40, and 3.6 x 10 ^ -6 Ar40, then eight times this much K40 must have decayed, thus about 28.8 x 10 ^ -6 parts of K40 have decayed, so there is less than 1/10 of the original K40 left. This implies a radiometric age of over 4 billion years. So a rock can get a very old radiometric age just by having average amounts of potassium and argon. It seems reasonable to me that the large radiometric ages are simply a consequence of mixing, and not related to ages at all, at least not necessarily the ages of the rocks themselves. The fact that not all of the argon is retained would account for smaller amounts of argon near the surface, as I will explain below. This could happen because of properties of the magma chambers, or because of argon being given off by some rocks and absorbed by others.

I don't see how one can possibly know that there are no tiny cracks in rocks that would permit water and gas to circulate. The rates of exchange that would mess up the dates are very tiny. It seems to me to be a certainty that water and gas will enter rocks through tiny cracks and invalidate almost all radiometric ages.

Let me illustrate the circulation patterns of argon in the earth's crust. About 2.5 percent of the earth's crust is believed to be potassium, and about 1/10,000 of this is K40 which decays to Ar40 with a half life of 1.3 billion years. So argon is being produced throughout the earth's crust, and in the magma, all the time. In fact, it probably rises to the top of the magma, artificially increasing its concentration there. Now, some rocks in the crust are believed not to hold their argon, so this argon will enter the spaces between the rocks. Leaching also occurs, releasing argon from rocks. Heating of rocks can also release argon. Argon is released from lava as it cools, and probably filters up into the crust from the magma below, along with helium and other radioactive decay products.

All of this argon is being produced and entering the air and water in between the rocks, and gradually filtering up to the atmosphere. But we know that rocks absorb argon, because correction factors are applied for this when using K-Ar dating. So this argon that is being produced will leave some rocks and enter others. The partial pressure of argon should be largest deepest in the earth, and decrease towards the surface. This would result in larger K-Ar ages lower down, but lower ages nearer the surface.

As for K-Ar dating, here is a quote given above:

"As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew. Under favourable circumstances the isochron method may be helpful, but tests by other techniques may be required. For example, the rubidium-strontium method would give a valid isotopic age of the biotite sample with inherited argon."

So this confirms that argon can travel from rock to rock when one rock is heated. Now, argon is very soluble in magma, which can hold a lot of it:

"Laboratory experiments have been conducted on the solubility of argon in synthetic basaltic melts and their associated minerals.31, 32 Minerals and melts were held near 13000C at one atmosphere pressure in a gas stream containing argon. After the material was quenched, the researchers measured up to 0.34 ppm 40Ar within synthetic olivine. They noted, 'The solubility of Ar in the minerals is surprisingly high'.33 Their conclusion is that argon is held primarily in lattice vacancy defects within the minerals."

I note that this concentration of argon, if it were retained in the rock, would suffice to give it a geological age well over 500 nillion years, assuming an average concentration of potassium. This is from a paper by Austin available at ICR. This paper also discusses Mount St. Helens K-Ar dating, and historic lava flows and their excess argon.

So magma holds tremendous amounts of argon. Now, consider an intrusive flow, which cools within the earth. All its argon will either remain inside and give an old age to the flow, or will travel through surrounding rock, where it can be absorbed by other rocks. If one assumes that the amount of argon in the magma is consistent with an age of 4 billion years, then there should be about 7/8 as much argon 40 as potassium 40. For a rock 570 million years old, there should be about 1/24 as much argon as potassium 40. So magma should have at least 20 times as much argon as a rock 570 million years old by K-Ar dating. In fact, the argon in the magma may well be even higher, as it may concentrate near the top. This amount of argon is enough to raise 20 times the volume of magma to a K-Ar age of 570 million years, and probably 200 times the volume of the magam to an age of 57 million years. So one sees that there is a tremendous potential for age increases in this way. It is not necessary for this increase in age to happen all at once; many events of this nature can gradually increase the K-Ar ages of rocks. In general, older rocks should have more argon because they have been subject to more exposure to such argon, but their true age is not necessarily related to their K-Ar radiometric age.

We can also consider that most volcanoes and earthquakes occur at boundaries between plates, so if the lava has flowed before, it is likely to flow again nearby, gradually increasing the age. I suppose earthquakes could also allow the release of argon from the magma.

Other mechanisms include dissolving of rock, releasing its argon, fracturing of rock, with release of argon, argon from cooling lava under water entering the water and entering other rocks, and argon from cooling lave entering subterranean water and being transported to other rock. There are so many mechanisms that it is hard to know what pattern to expect, and one does not need to rely on any one of them (such as more argon in the magma in the past) to account for problems in K-Ar dating.

Since even rocks with old K-Ar dates still absorb more argon from the atmosphere in short time periods, it follows that rocks should absorb quite a bit of argon over long time periods, especially at higher pressures. In fact, if a rock can absorb only a ten millionth part of argon, that should be enough to raise its K-Ar age to over 570 million years, assuming an average amounts of potassium. It wouldn't require many internal cracks to allow a ten millionth part of argon to enter. Also, as the rock deforms under pressure, more cracks are likely to form and old ones are likely to close up, providing more opportunity for argon (and other gases) to enter.

I mentioned a number of possibilities that could cause K-Ar dates to be much older than the true ages of the rocks. Here is another way that K-Ar dates can be too old: If we assume the earth went through a catastrophe recently, then the crustal plates might have been agitated, permitting lava and argon to escape from the magma. Thus a lot of argon would be filtering up through the crust. As intrusive flows of lava cooled inside the crust, they would have been in an environment highly enriched in argon, and thus would not have gotten rid of much of their argon. Thus they would have hardened with a lot of argon inside. This would make them appear old. The same goes for extrusive flows on the surface, since argon would be filtering up through the earth and through the lava as it cooled.

The following was sent to me by a friend:

In areas where tremendous tectonic activity has taken place, highly discordant values for the ages are obtained. The difficulties associated are numerous and listed as follows:

1. There seems to be a great deal of question regarding the branching ratio for K40 into Ar40 and Ca40. The value that has been used for Ar40/Ca40 has varied from 0.12 to 0.08. But the value is not really known. The observed value is between 0.11 and 0.126, but in order to match K-Ar ages, which average somewhat higher [lower?] than the U-Th-Pb ages, to the latter ages, the value 0.08 is arbitrarily taken. However, this doesn't remedy the situation and the ages are still too high [low?]. The geochronologists credit this to "argon leakage".

2. There is far too much Ar40 in the earth for more than a small fraction of it to have been formed by radioactive decay of K40. This is true even if the earth really is 4.5 billion years old. In the atmosphere of the earth, Ar40 constitutes 99.6% of the total argon. This is around 100 times the amount that would be generated by radioactive decay over the age of 4.5 billion years. Certainly this is not produced by an influx from outer space. Thus, a large amount of Ar40 was present in the beginning. Since geochronologists assume that errors due to presence of initial Ar40 are small, their results are highly questionable.

3. Argon diffuses from mineral to mineral with great ease. It leaks out of rocks very readily and can move from down deep in the earth, where the pressure is large, and accumulate in an abnormally large amount in the surface where rock samples for dating are found. They would all have excess argon due to this movement. This makes them appear older. Rocks from deeper in the crust would show this to a lesser degree. Also, since some rocks hold the Ar40 stronger than others, some rocks will have a large apparent age, others smaller ages, though they may actually be the same age. If you were to measure Ar40 concentration as function of depth, you would no doubt find more of it near the surface than at deeper points because it migrates more easily from deep in the earth than it does from the earth into the atmosphere. It is easy to see how the huge ages are being obtained by the K40-Ar40 radiometric clock, since surface and near-surface samples will contain argon due to this diffusion effect.

Some geochronologists believe that a possible cause of excess argon is that argon diffuses into mineral progressively with time. Significant quantities of argon may be introduced into a mineral even at pressures as low as one bar.

...

If such [excessive] ages as mentioned above are obtained for pillow lavas, how are those from deep-sea drilling out in the Atlantic where sea-floor spreading is supposed to be occurring?

5. Potassium is found to be very mobile under leaching conditions. As much as 80% of the potassium in a small sample of an iron meteorite was removed by running distilled water over it for 4 and 1/2 hours. This could move the "ages" to tremendously high values. Ground-water and erosional water movements could produce this effect naturally.

6. Rocks in areas having a complex geological history have many large discordances. In a single rock there may be mutually contaminating, potassium- bearing minerals.

7. There is some difficulty in determining the decay constants for the K40-Ar40 system. Geochronologists use the branching ratio as a semi-emperical, adjustable constant which they manipulate instead of using an accurate half-life for K40.

A number of recent lava flows (within the past few hundred years) yield potassium-argon ages in the hundreds of thousands of years range. This indicates that some excess argon is present. Where is it coming from? And how do we know that it could not be a much larger quantity in other cases? If more excess argon were present, then we could get much older ages.

It is true that an age difference in the hundreds of thousands of years is much too small to account for the observed K-Ar ages. But excess argon is commonly invoked by geologists to explain dates that are too old, so I'm not inventing anything new. Second, there may have been a lot more more argon in the magma in the past, and with each eruption, the amount decreased. So there would have been a lot more excess argon in the past, leading to older ages.

For rocks that are being dated, contamination with atmospheric argon is a persistent problem that is mentioned a number of times. Thus it is clear that argon enters rock easily. It is claimed that we can know if a rock has added argon by its spectrum when heated; different temperatures yield different fractions of argon. It is claimed that the argon that enters from the atmosphere or other rocks, is less tightly bound to the crystal lattice, and will leave the rock at a lower temperature. But how do we know what happens over thousands of years? It could be that this argon which is initially loosely bound (if it is so initially) gradually becomes more tightly bound by random thermal vibrations, until it becomes undetectable by the spectrum technique. The fact that rock is often under high pressure might influence this process, as well.

Do you even research your articles?
Potassium to argons half life is 1.26x109 years. You would not use that to date something 11 years old. That is a biased article. You would need something with a very small half life to date something that new.

All of you are showing your true colors.......Attack me......This is what your best at each and every time your proven wrong.........hmmmmmmmm such children.

Maybe we should build a playground thread for all of you.

What attack? And how am I proven wrong? I am saying that article is moot because they are not even using something that could date that specimen. I am also a religious person, but just because the Bible says something doesn't make it fact.

Obviously you missed these two.

Carbon dates they did not like

Carbon dating is frequently an embarrassment to Scientists.
Here are some Carbon 14 dates that were rejected because they did not agree with evolution

Penguins

Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! This is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating.

Mollusks

The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!

Dead seal

The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago!

Living seal

What about a freshly killed seal? Well, they dated one of those too, the results stated that the seal had died 1,300 years ago.

Antarctic seawater has a low level of C14. Consequently organisms living there dated by C14 give ages much older than their true age. (Antarctic Journal, Wahington)

A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, Washington)


Snails

Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61)







Carbon dating is flawed.........put up your math it doesn't change the fact........so now your saying that something has to be a certain age to carbon date.......hello they did it and look at the age differences...

yup, king abra has spoken.

the lies and distortions and innuendo and irrel3evant conjecture of delusional god haters on a mission to attempt an overthrow of humanity are on the job as never before cleansing the world of all unrest with lies and insincerity and hidden agendas and probabilities and endless study and measurement and exhaustive cataloguing in inconsequential evidence.


continue on in your delusions.

it is the funniest thing I have witnessed in years.

You amaze me, abra.

you and the clowns you are having intelligent and serious discourse with here actually believe this spew and transfer it onto christians as though you are so superior in the clever little hattricks called lies and guesses and incontrovertibla probability.

Noneof you can deliver the goods.

there is nothing to deliver.


want a news flash, clowns?

you have been sold down the river by your idiot mentors and been fed a bill oif goods that was a rotten commodity from the beginning.


funny.

best comedy in years, right here in this forin=m.


the religious forum and the would be hijackers of it.

perplexity at its zenith.

I cannot even call it a paradox.

A paradox is too kind for you insloent self absorbed spouters of lies and conjecture.

go play in another sandbox.

your credibility has been questioned, judgerd and gone uunanswered by you for proof of your perfect clarity.

mud? HAH!!!!

not even mud is as dense as this.

mud is transluscent comapred to the oblique and opague spin you all piut on your lies and insincerity,



Once again, no proof of evolution, no [proof that the Bible is wrong, only proof that conjecture remains to be the mantra of the depraved and wicked that foist their delusions whole on everyone in deflection and transference.


wow!!!

but hey,

keep dancing kids...



no proof yet, just discussion about your lub=nacy among yourselves...


dance kiddies...


hang on to that penny!!!!!!!!




the fiddler will be paid at the end of the dance...



He is at the front door, but you can run out the back door....



but he will get that penny, kids.


know that.

yup, king abra has spoken.

the lies and distortions and innuendo and irrel3evant conjecture of delusional god haters on a mission to attempt an overthrow of humanity are on the job as never before cleansing the world of all unrest with lies and insincerity and hidden agendas and probabilities and endless study and measurement and exhaustive cataloguing in inconsequential evidence.


continue on in your delusions.

it is the funniest thing I have witnessed in years.

You amaze me, abra.

you and the clowns you are having intelligent and serious discourse with here actually believe this spew and transfer it onto christians as though you are so superior in the clever little hattricks called lies and guesses and incontrovertibla probability.

Noneof you can deliver the goods.

there is nothing to deliver.


want a news flash, clowns?

you have been sold down the river by your idiot mentors and been fed a bill oif goods that was a rotten commodity from the beginning.


funny.

best comedy in years, right here in this forin=m.


the religious forum and the would be hijackers of it.

perplexity at its zenith.

I cannot even call it a paradox.

A paradox is too kind for you insloent self absorbed spouters of lies and conjecture.

go play in another sandbox.

your credibility has been questioned, judgerd and gone uunanswered by you for proof of your perfect clarity.

mud? HAH!!!!

not even mud is as dense as this.

mud is transluscent comapred to the oblique and opague spin you all piut on your lies and insincerity,



Once again, no proof of evolution, no [proof that the Bible is wrong, only proof that conjecture remains to be the mantra of the depraved and wicked that foist their delusions whole on everyone in deflection and transference.


wow!!!

but hey,

keep dancing kids...



no proof yet, just discussion about your lub=nacy among yourselves...


dance kiddies...


hang on to that penny!!!!!!!!




the fiddler will be paid at the end of the dance...



He is at the front door, but you can run out the back door....



but he will get that penny, kids.


know that.

Apparently their starting source of carbon is wrong. You cant expect to get accurate results when you are not using the proper measuring tools. All the example you listed would be like using a day to measure how long it takes for the lights to come on when you flip a switch.

excuses for the incontrovertible conclusion...

evolutionists have an excuse for everything except their faulty hypothesis

fror 150 plus years this conjercture has taken the world with sleight of hand.

Thank God for the internet.

this nonsene will stop because it is exposed to everyone.


keep spewing.

still no proof.

only excses and conjecture

isn't that what we have been warning you all about for years? of course it.

come on......

proof, not more excuses

no more, we know that much.

are yo all so daft??????

is this all you have????

in this day and age is this the best that can be done to prove yoiu??????


why are you bothering at all?

all you do is prove my point.

you are spewing conjecture as fact and deceiving the world and lying to yourselves.

we already know that.

you, apparently, do not.\






this is funny.


A christian laughing at mankeys.