Keldasi

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@Davetron3 @I__HATE_SOCCER It's not a matter of insecurity. It's a symbol for a hate group, Megalia.
It's like someone adding a couple swastikas and doing the Roman salute.
South Korea has extremist misogynists and extremist misandrists.
https://t.co/yKJ43bXUzP

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@bingus51455 @Tachiiikari It isn't saying they have a tiny dick.
It's a sign of affiliation to a hate group, which chose that sign as a small-penis mockery.

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 That's because you are refusing to read the substantion...

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 That was plain english.
Do you need to get some sleep?

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 Less fancy machines in the 90s had some issues with low ages.
So the minimum was higher. The reason why is in the reference. Unfortunately the website of the lab in the early 90s was not screenshot so you don't get a handy picture.
This makes their results perfectly explainable

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 That I make?
Are you under the impression I wrote that instead of finding it with as much effort as you did?

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 Sorry that a website from the 1990s wasn't perfectly preserved, now you have to read a research paper from the 60s
The specific reference is listed by name in the main body of the text, and found at the bottom

Dalrymple, G.B., 1969

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 Why would I need a paper to refute an overtly biased blog piece? An overtly biased blog piece is a perfect way to refute it.
I don't need to guess, or ask them. They said so themselves in plain English.

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 ? What cult members? I'm not in a cult
Why would they be taken down, they have the free speech to say obviously false shit even after being successfully challenged
You pointed out nothing, you called it anti-creationist and stopped there. Refusing to address any portion of it.

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 If no-one lied then your objection that "the lab knew, because contract" is nullified and this comes back up.
They did not inform the lab that an age was known. This type of radiometric dating does not work on rocks this young. Their 'big scoop' is that they did the wrong test.

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 Off the top of my head? Its not slander if its true.
https://t.co/N58wwdrIpw

I'll keep that in mind if I ever consider slandering anyone, especially a reputable organization which these scumbags are not.
Why would I contact people that knowingly lie to correct their lies?

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 So which explanation is correct:
1) Austin lied to his readers and the lab knew the samples were improperly young
2) Austin lied to the lab and the lab did not know the samples were improperly young
Because it sounds like you think 1 is true, but I want to make sure.

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 Do you think the creation ministry, a creationist org known for lying to discredit science, would ever publish a thorough takedown of themselves?
Wow you are naive
I literally did refute them. The minimum age for K-Ar dating exceeds 6,000 years, it is not an appropriate test

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 Should I take this as an admission that you did not in fact read it?

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 To be clear, there is evidence all over the page of different flaws with the 'study' that have been referenced.

Ironic that you'd blindly accept a creationist blog with an anti-radiometric hit piece but not an anti-creationist rebuttal

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 Unsubstantiated?
That's directly from YOUR link, did you not read it?

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@DecodingFoxNews @ILA_NewsX @WallStreetMav Because he paid for it with Argentinian pesos.
It was a currency swap.

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 Did you miss the massive list of references at the bottom?
They did get told what they were testing. Dacite with low argon and no mention of known age. It's called dishonesty, they intentionally messed up to try and get abnormal results.

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 https://t.co/lLhq4BInIv
Here you go

[Keldasi @KingGossard]

@scaleyback246 @HenriqueAbran14 @NotEvolution1 I did, the lab they used had a minimum accurate year of 2,000,000. There are labs with more advanced machines with a minimum accurate year closer to 6,000.
All the results came in under 2,000,000 except one at 2,900,000
That is dishonesty. They intentionally misused the test