This conversation is going nowhere Russ. No evidence from you again, I see. Ignoring the dates and dating methods again too. Reality doesn't work this way: you can't ignore the fact that something exists, talk as if it doesn't, and hope it conveniently vanishes.
You keep saying the geologic column doesn't exist. Right, that's all the scientists proved wrong then -- is that what you were thinking? Or are you hoping that the more times you say it, the truer it will be?
EVERY ONE of them is based on vast assumptions. For example, using the reasoning of tidal stress maintaining a molten core over a long period of time is highly debatable, and easily refuted.
Dates and dating methods again. Not assumptions. But you're just going to keep making unsupported claims aren't you? It appears that you are unable to do otherwise.
There's no debate that the tidal stress on Jupiter's moon Io is causing it to be the most volcanically active body in the solar system. I'm amazed that all you think you have to do is say it ain't so, and thus it will be. You're trying to wind me up aren't you.
I know the trusty onlooker will have the due diligence to do their homework.
In other words, you don't want to bother backing up your statements with evidence. That's fine but since I on the other hand do, you're not making a very good case for the scientific validity of creationism.
I don't believe that you bothered to read this thread before you started talking here. You claim the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. I have given substantial evidence that rocks are routinely dated without the need for fossils yet you just ignore this. Why do you keep making the same claims over and over when they have been shown to be wrong -- you're trying to wind me up aren't you.
This is the way the world works Linda.
No, what you've just shown is that you don't understand how fossils are dated and studied. Sounds like you're regurgitating stuff Hovind told you. And it's pretty silly. You're trying to wind me up aren't you.
Your world view is: Fantastically Naive.
Who believes everything Hovind tells him despite all evidence to the contrary?
Your world view requires you to either ignore empirical evidence, or label it as evil lies, in order to protect its integrity in your head. You have demonstrated this many times here.
I don't have any desire to trade insults with anyone; I just want to have an intelligent discussion. I don't think that's going to happen here, so it looks like I'm going to have to go back to waiting for someone to present more misinformation and then let them know.
