Modern humans have existed for 300,000 years but Abrahamic religions are only 3500 years old

[Th3Birdman]

people like you rely so heavily on appeals to authority that you dont realize it makes you look and sound like a slave

Y'all see this right?

The nikka literally ASKED US FOR EVIDENCE, and then when I provide said evidence, he claims it's an appeal to authority.

HE ASKED FOR THAT

show me a peer reviewed paper that establishes a real context for why its usable up to 300000 years

this nikka is hilarious!

 

[MMS]

Y'all see this right?

The nikka literally ASKED US FOR EVIDENCE, and then when I provide said evidence, he claims it's an appeal to authority.

HE ASKED FOR THAT





this nikka is hilarious!

you failed to do it instead you just posted a paper where they used the tool, not verified its accuracy

because guess what: its not actually verified because they are measuring events in the past noone can physically go to

thats why its quack science. All the smileys and gifs dont change the fact you still acting like a hungry malnourished animal

 

[Th3Birdman]

you failed to do it instead you just posted a paper where they used the tool, not verified its accuracy

Here's a paper from Cambridge:

Introduction to Radiometric Dating | The Paleontological Society Papers | Cambridge Core

Introduction to Radiometric Dating - Volume 12

www.cambridge.org

DL Talboys, University of Leicester:

In situ radiometric dating on Mars: Investigation of the feasibility of K-Ar dating using flight-type mass and X-ray spectrometers

The absolute chronology of Mars is poorly known and, as a consequence, a key science aim is to perform accurate radiometric dating of martian geologic…

www.sciencedirect.com

Dalyrymple of the NSCE: Radiometric Dating Does Work:

Radiometric Dating Does Work! | National Center for Science Education

Radiometric dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life.

ncse.ngo

All three of these links are papers and one article from the NSCE about the efficacy of Radiometric Dating. Click the links, they will say "PEER REVIEWED"

 

[MMS]

Here's a paper from Cambridge:

Introduction to Radiometric Dating | The Paleontological Society Papers | Cambridge Core

Introduction to Radiometric Dating - Volume 12

www.cambridge.org

DL Talboys, University of Leicester:

In situ radiometric dating on Mars: Investigation of the feasibility of K-Ar dating using flight-type mass and X-ray spectrometers

The absolute chronology of Mars is poorly known and, as a consequence, a key science aim is to perform accurate radiometric dating of martian geologic…

www.sciencedirect.com

Dalyrymple of the NSCE: Radiometric Dating Does Work:

Radiometric Dating Does Work! | National Center for Science Education

Radiometric dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life.

ncse.ngo

All three of these links are papers and one article from the NSCE about the efficacy of Radiometric Dating. Click the links, they will say "PEER REVIEWED"

one article explaining what it is

another attempting to use it on mars

and the third from the website ive already quoted boy you are slow

A few verified examples of incorrect radiometric ages are simply insufficient to prove that radiometric dating is invalid. All they indicate is that the methods are not infallible.

begone swine. I already proved you wrong several times now. The accuracy is flimsy and they only use it because they dont have other options and their assumption of deep time holds up major communities and many jobs. If all of a sudden the public distrusted the millions/billions of years narrative hundreds of thousands of scientists would be out of a job (which in truth they should be)

heres another nice convenient 6 minute video

 

[MMS]

yea. I mean…@MMS took on a tough opponent in the reigning Rookie of the Year.

Birdman coming off a huge victory against Luken so he was already charged up.

Fuck, man. Birdman landed more in the later rounds and the quoted was the body shot that sat ‘em down.

The Rook got Luken and a mod in his résumé

speak when spoken too

 

[Th3Birdman]

Since you are allergic to actually clicking the links that you're asking for:

one article explaining what it is

NO you goofy ass dude, the first is examining why it works, and explaining HOW:

It is important for all geoscientists to appreciate the physical basis underlying these methods and to have the ability to evaluate dates by means of currently accepted practices of data presentation. This introduction, along with the accompanying chapters, is intended to help the consumers of radiometric dates to understand better the uses and limitations of radiometric dating methods in an effort to tailor methods and techniques to address specific geochronologic needs, including calibration of the geologic time scale

another attempting to use it on mars

Again, the literal title disproves what you're saying here. The title of this paper is:

"Investigating the feasibility of K-Ar dating"

In situ radiometric dating on Mars: Investigation of the feasibility of K-Ar dating using flight-type mass and X-ray spectrometers

The absolute chronology of Mars is poorly known and, as a consequence, a key science aim is to perform accurate radiometric dating of martian geologic…

www.sciencedirect.com

Maybe try actually engaging with the paper instead of kicking and screaming like a child. You are WRONG.

and the third from the website ive already quoted

Again, you have failed to understand the position of a scientific article. Not only that, YOU QUOTE MINED THE ARTICLE, proving how dishonest you are.

Here's the full quote:

A few verified examples of incorrect radiometric ages are simply insufficient to prove that radiometric dating is invalid. All they indicate is that the methods are not infallible. Those of us who have developed and used dating techniques to solve scientific problems are well aware that the systems are not perfect; we ourselves have provided numerous examples of instances in which the techniques fail. We often test them under controlled conditions to learn when and why they fail so we will not use them incorrectly. We have even discredited entire techniques. For example, after extensive testing over many years, it was concluded that uranium-helium dating is highly unreliable because the small helium atom diffuses easily out of minerals over geologic time. As a result, this method is not used except in rare and highly specialized applications. Other dating techniques, like K-Ar (potassium-argon and its more recent variant 40Ar/39Ar), Rb-Sr (rubidium-strontium), Sm-Nd (samarium-neodynium), Lu-Hf (lutetium-hafnium), and U-Pb (uranium-lead and its variant Pb-Pb), have all stood the test of time

Radiometric Dating Does Work! | National Center for Science Education

Radiometric dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life.

ncse.ngo

As anyone here can see, I have proven, definitively, that MMS is a liar, deceptive, and doesn't know what he's talking about. He took the quote out of context to make it seem like it was saying something it wasn't.

He's proven he WILL NOT actually read the evidence he asks for, will lie about what they say, and will not provide any evidence of his own.

 

[MMS]

Maybe try actually engaging with the paper instead of kicking and screaming like a child. You are WRONG.

its not working you gonna have to put the pom poms down as that 50-second video ended you and youre still grasping for straws

they used your argon dating methods on 10-year-old rocks and they claimed they were 3-50million years old

you're done here

 

[Th3Birdman]

its not working you gonna have to put the pom poms down as that 50-second video ended you and youre still grasping for straws

they used your argon dating methods on 10-year-old rocks and they claimed they were 3-50million years old

you're done here

I rest my case.

Y'all be easy.

 

[MMS]

I rest my case.

Y'all be easy.

cause its been over dummy! the fact you carry on without actually disputing anything ive said is comical ill give you that

but to assume you're winning when this was never a contest is whats sad and speaks to how juvenile you think

all the dating methods are BUNK and are used as benchmarks for these "scientists" when in truth its just flimsy attempts to hold up racist darwin evolution claims from the 1800s where they would have thrown you out of the building

 

[YaThreadFloppedB!]

speak when spoken too

or what

Spoiler

 

[MMS]

or what

Spoiler

i got a stream of warnings with your name on them

 

[YaThreadFloppedB!]

i got a stream of warnings with your name on them

nigga mad he got dragged up and down this Thread.

Spoiler

you was outta your depth, next time stay in the inflatable kiddie pool

 

[MMS]

nigga mad he got dragged up and down this Thread.

Spoiler

spamming =/= dragged

not one of my claims was debunked but i neutered him and you. stick to being a situational alias

 

[YaThreadFloppedB!]

spamming =/= dragged

not one of my claims was debunked but i neutered him and you. stick to being a situational alias

spamming = responding to your delusions ?

i’m not the only one who chimed in and gave the win to your opponent


your evisceration was a public note. me heralding your demise musta hit different

 

[MMS]

spamming = responding to your delusions ?

i’m not the only one who chimed in and gave the win to your opponent


your evisceration was a public note. me heralding your demise musta hit different

i have no adversary respect your elders