nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 256:
Line 256: + + +
→Primeq's edits: Assumptions; apology
The question remains - why are we cherry-picking NASA's statements? Does anyone fully understand and can they ratify the laser-interferomtry techniques supposedly used to measure the rate of moon-recedence? Are there reasons to believe the laser-measurements, yet disbelieve the isotope-ratio techniques used to age the moon? I'm sensing a disturbing ethic here of selective accreditation. I'm going to need some help. Regardless of these edits which (out of respect for the Conservapedia social-contract)I will not merely just re-enter and thereby start a cycle of edit/revert followed by account cancellation, I do believe some kind of statement of moon-age is warranted. {{unsigned|Primeq}} --17:38, 23 November 2007
The question remains - why are we cherry-picking NASA's statements? Does anyone fully understand and can they ratify the laser-interferomtry techniques supposedly used to measure the rate of moon-recedence? Are there reasons to believe the laser-measurements, yet disbelieve the isotope-ratio techniques used to age the moon? I'm sensing a disturbing ethic here of selective accreditation. I'm going to need some help. Regardless of these edits which (out of respect for the Conservapedia social-contract)I will not merely just re-enter and thereby start a cycle of edit/revert followed by account cancellation, I do believe some kind of statement of moon-age is warranted. {{unsigned|Primeq}} --17:38, 23 November 2007
::We are not "cherry-picking". I've already explained above the distinction (observation vs. belief). Yes, there are good reasons to disbelieve the dating methods, as explained in [[radiometric dating]]. In essence, dating is a ''calculation'' based on measurements ''and assumptions''—age is not something that can be directly measured—and those assumptions include an assumption of long ages. So using them to ''prove'' long ages is a circular argument.
:: Regarding a "statement of moon-age", I have reinstated that, with my apologies for completely reverting your edit rather than retaining that useful bit.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 24 November 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps the problem is one of my own, or other's [[ignorance]]? To me, an "old earth" is one significantly older than 6,000 years. Yet, I keep seeing figures ranging from 1 billion to more than 10 billion years. For those who have not committed their life to Biblical study, and that of [[Geology]], it becomes very confusing when there are such drastic differences introduced in and out of this discussion. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps the problem is one of my own, or other's [[ignorance]]? To me, an "old earth" is one significantly older than 6,000 years. Yet, I keep seeing figures ranging from 1 billion to more than 10 billion years. For those who have not committed their life to Biblical study, and that of [[Geology]], it becomes very confusing when there are such drastic differences introduced in and out of this discussion. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)