88 votes for "young earth"?
Oh my.
There's more stupid people here than I previously thought.
English
-
Holy shit so many replies lol
-
You didn't even say anything inflammatory like usual. People must just hate you lol
-
*there are. It's ok to make grammar mistakes but don't make them when you are trying to insult another's intelligence. Idiot :)
-
Edited by A84: 1/30/2015 3:52:02 PM*There are. It's ok to make grammatical mistakes, but don't make them when you are trying to insult another's intelligence. You idiot. :) Fix'd, since apparently you don't know proper grammar either. But seriously, is that the best you can do? Correct his grammar? If it is, you've already lost any argument you hoped to start.
-
Edited by Mad Max: 1/29/2015 8:07:22 PMYou sure showed me. "There're" is awkward and almost never used in written text
-
How about these: We'll've Shouldn't've They'd've
-
I'm partial to y'all'd've You all would have.
-
Which is why you use "there are" :)
-
That's correct. I should have.
-
[quote]88 votes for "young earth"? Oh my. There are more trolls here than I previously thought.[/quote] Fixed.
-
How can we know? Some people genuinely believe this nonsense.
-
This subthread makes me want to shit myself with both fury and amusement. Nice work, Max. As always.
-
U no like my comments? Fuq you
-
What do you expect maxi? All the Jesus loving bible thumpers on these forums come out of the crevices they hide in to skew the vote.
-
Thank you for that compliment .... Bible thumper ..... Have a blessed day!
-
-
I thought it meant whether or not I thought being a few billion years was young or old. I believe it is in a young state
-
No no, when OP says "young" he means 6000-10000 years old...
-
Well in that case, it's old.
-
Im sure a few are voting young earth for shits and giggles. Though its still too many.
-
In your thoughts ..... To the ones that voted young earth you that voted old earth are stupid right?
-
Except we have evidence that our planet is older than 6,000-10,000 years. To deny that evidence and assert that we still have a "young" earth is stupid.
-
Can you point out this evidence? All iv ever read about is stratigraphic superpositioning or looking at radiation and though these are interesting and clever means, they have flaws and unknowns that we have to work around which can throw off the end results greatly
-
http://www.smithsonian.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/ http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
-
So in this post they bring up carbon dating.. Which scientists agree is only accurate to about 20,000 years(that's with probability of half life taken as a value not a probability and making an assumption on the percentage of carbon14 in our atmosphere 20,000 years ago since nobody was alive to measure it) so they didn't use Carbon dating they used Uranium. Uranium does indeed have a much longer half life but again the same assumptions need to be made using this method. In the article they don't tell you their formula they used or what variables were in the formula, they just say they used uranium based dating and say it's 4.6billion years... I really want to see a formula without unknown variables, but I never have anywhere.. I love science but I feel this is a flaw in many scientists findings, why is nobody talking about this? It's very subjective and I hope we soon find a better dating method