http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers

davidk on November 22, 2012 at 12:17 PM

There we go! Thanks!
To say I’m skeptical of the “young earth” argument is an understatement in the extreme, but I’ll give your links a fair reading. I’d like to read an argument other than, “the dating method is false because the Bible says the Earth was created on this date, and the results from the experiment don’t match up with what the Bible says.”
JimLennon on November 22, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Do come back and share your thoughts. I’m always interested what a fair and open-minded person thinks no matter where they currently stand on the issue, they are hard to find especially on he Internet, ha.

We get their publications in the mail, and what I think they do an excellent job highlighting is when a new scientific discovery is made how theories are changed. It’s good perspective what a daunting subject it is with so many factors and assumptions built in. Some of their own work and theories, I don’t know what I think, I think I’d need more expertise in the field to come up with my own resolve on the matter, but certainly they follow and are a great resource into the topic.

The solution is to play their game, but better. Punch back twice as hard, as Glenn Reynolds would say

Time to poison Hillary’s legacy now. Hammer her on Benghazi and all her Middle East failures. Dredge up all of Bill’s disgusting perversions, deflate the rosy illusion people have of his tenure.

We need to spend 4 years destroying Hillary, then Cuomo or whoever else comes to the forefront. Starting now.

Our nominee can be Reagan incarnate in 2016, it won’t matter if we let Hillary preen in the media unscathed to the nomination

We can play their game, and do it better.

Kinda like climate change and Obamacare, right? The “experts” are certainly flawless in their conclusions there too.
MelonCollie on November 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM

But for the vast majority of Americans, if a professor with a Ph.D. in geology is claiming that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and a minister is claiming that Earth is 6-10 thousand years old because of how he interpreted a series of passages in the Bible, the scientist will get the benefit of the doubt every time.
JimLennon on November 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Kinda like climate change and Obamacare, right? The “experts” are certainly flawless in their conclusions there too.
MelonCollie on November 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Yes, this.

There are all kinds of PhDs that study creation, some are young earth, some aren’t, all different combinations of possible theories, but it’s not just “ministers” that believe creation or young earth, but scientists that do believe and study the evidence for it are shunned just like the scientists that are AGW “deniers”. Yet we are supposed to give a head nod to what current theory the peer pressure mainstream scientific community is telling us. Like we should always say, “well current scientific research shows us the human activity will make the temperatures will rise 1.5 degrees in the next several decades rising the sea levels tens of feet and risking millions of lives…” and then some lame disclaimer for the base. It’s exact true same and we’re always conceding the argument to the other side. Rubio’s answer was fine. There is no reason the small vocal few that we probably can’t sway their vote anyway needs to make us alienate our base.

JimLennon on November 22, 2012 at 12:31 PM

And I agree with your take on the responses to the question. Rubio did sound a bit too glib.

As others have stated, conservative candidates need to learn to anticipate these kinds of questions.

To say I’m skeptical of the “young earth” argument is an understatement in the extreme, but I’ll give your links a fair reading. I’d like to read an argument other than, “the dating method is false because the Bible says the Earth was created on this date, and the results from the experiment don’t match up with what the Bible says.”

JimLennon on November 22, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Fair enough.

Mr. Limbaugh’s shout out to Hot Air and Allahpundit notwithstanding (yay!), his broadcast’s “How old is the earth” comparison, judged equally (on a human scale), would favor Barack Obama which was certainly not the comparison’s intention:

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 22, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Sadly, I agree. Rubio’s response makes him sound airheaded, but that just might be how the transcription reads. “I’m not a scientist, maaaaan!“. Obama’s response sounds more mature, if a bit pandering.

http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers

davidk on November 22, 2012 at 12:17 PM

There we go! Thanks!

To say I’m skeptical of the “young earth” argument is an understatement in the extreme, but I’ll give your links a fair reading. I’d like to read an argument other than, “the dating method is false because the Bible says the Earth was created on this date, and the results from the experiment don’t match up with what the Bible says.”

hawkdriver on November 22, 2012 at 9:22
AM
If one of your core beliefs is that Earth is 6000 years old, or that God intends you to have the baby from that rape (which He also must have intended) the distinction to which you refer will make things worse for the GOP.

Basilsbest on November 22, 2012 at 9:47 AM

I guess I was under the incorrect assumption by some of your other comments over the years that you were a person of faith believing in The Bible. My bad.

The GOP will betray you.

Panther on November 22, 2012 at 10:52 AM

So do you folks. Romney could have won FL without Gary Johnson.