My point was all dating schemes are based on assumptions - including this one! Quoting from the link:
"The fourth column is the number of half-lifes which have taken place assuming that 4.5 billion years have passed since the atom's formation."
"Assuming that the evolutionists are right in estimating the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old"
Regardless of what you say about anything, assumptions have to be made. Don't give me junk science, don't tell me that anyone knows everything there is to know about "radionuclides" to be able to know for an absolute scientific fact that the world is 4.5 billion years old. I keep hearing words like "assume" and "expect" and I remain very skeptical.
20 million years? B.S! "Scientists" don't have any accurate way to date things ("hmm, this rock must be 10 million years old. The bones must be 10 million years old, because the rock is. How do we know that? Because the bones are. See, its simple")
Thank you. Finally, someone saying something rational about how "scientists" have take their "religion" and stuffed it down our throats.
My point was all dating schemes are based on assumptions - including this one! Quoting from the link: "The fourth column is the number of half-lifes which have taken place assuming that 4.5 billion years have passed since the atom's formation." "Assuming that the evolutionists are right in estimating the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old" Regardless of what you say about anything, assumptions have to be made. Don't give me junk science, don't tell me that anyone knows everything there is to know about "radionuclides" to be able to know for an absolute scientific fact that the world is 4.5 billion years old. I keep hearing words like "assume" and "expect" and I remain very skeptical.
20 million years? B.S! "Scientists" don't have any accurate way to date things ("hmm, this rock must be 10 million years old. The bones must be 10 million years old, because the rock is. How do we know that? Because the bones are. See, its simple")