|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
razd writes: Flood waters would cover it all, no? How would finding some in what is now desert help you? (1) The iridium layer was deposited on a number of surfaces, from marine to desert, and it was later covered by a number of different deposition environments, some marine and some desert. This variety negates it being associated with a world wide flood. You said the iridium layer was evidence for the flood. As I noted, that doesn't work, it doesn't explain the evidence. The iridium was deposited, following the meteor impact, covering a wide variety of surface type formations, as the ash and particulates fell from the sky, and they in turn were covered by a number of different surface type formations, due to geological processes, many of which have no relation to flooding (or even water). Those deposits have in turn been covered by newer surface type formations by those same types of geological processes. What is desert now is not necessarily related to what was desert after the iridium deposition. We also know that the iridium layer was caused by the catastrophic explosion of a meteor hitting the earth near what is now the Yucatan Peninsula, not by flood water, because the iridium came from the meteor, not the earth nor the water. You could of course look this up, but like most creationists you can't be bothered to do your own fact checking. (heck, most creationists don't really know what facts are).
(2) Also off topic, which is a typical ploy of creationists, because they don't have valid arguments to deal with the topic issues. Notice that creations has not yet addressed a single original post on this thread, but thinks he can bluster through. If evidence of the flood is asked for, and one points to some materials in layers at a certain area of the geologic column, that is off topic? Then why ask? Also, you responded to the same issue, why go off topic then? ... which is another fail. Because it is easy to be lured into answering inane comments. For comedy. You do realize that the only reason I respond to your trolling is to show silent readers who may wonder how good creationist arguments are, that they are vapid empty and delusional, don't you? I use you as a foil to show how science explains things with evidence and theory and testing, while creationism just makes things up. They can easily judge which arguments are persuasive.
The topic is not just about measuring age, by why there is consistency and correlation between different systems if they are not measuring age. Already answered, because your correlations all correlate from one belief! No that's not an answer it is an assertion. It is avoiding making a real answer. Because you have none. Not belief, evidence. There is no contradicting evidence and therefore no cause to consider one. You are the one making the claim that things were different, but have yet to post anything more than opinions and assertions. That's why you FAIL and FAIL and FAIL. BTW -- Glad you, by default, agree that linear systems correlating with exponential systems correlating with astronomic orbits are all consistently end up with the same results. But that's the biggest problem you face: why should they be so consistent when the are entirely different systems ... why should they ALL be affected in precisely the manner necessary to cause the correlations? This thread is not so much about the different ways to measure past time, but the correlations and consistencies between the different systems.
Equals 1,686 posts made since March 2004, and not one creationist has refuted the data, or even mounted a serious challenge to the correlations. No one needs to refute Santa stories, or your belief based stories! All they need to do is show they are mere belief based fabrications. Then . Do . So. That is what you have been asked to do from day 1: substantiate your argument with evidence. ie SHOW YOUR WORK. If you have anything other than bald assertion, now is the time to show it. Just claiming it is "mere belief based fabrications" is surprisingly void of evidence to base an argument on. You need evidence to support an explanation (theory) that shows it to be the case.
To counter scientific results you need to show where the errors are, what the result should be, and why.
Done. The error is that is is 100% belief based. ... Sadly, for you, that is not sufficient, it is void of evidence, it is void of any explanation for why there should be some magical difference in time that is -- as yet -- undetected, and it is void of any convincing argument based on that missing evidence and that missing explanation. It's just wasted bandwidth and another example for readers of how poor creationist arguments are when they are put to the test. It is comedy, not science.
... Same belief used for all yes all and I mean all so called correlations. ... Except that this fails to explain why there are correlations between entirely different systems. For instance if you twist magic time to cause thousands of tree rings to grow in one day, then you also need a mechanism to change the 14C content in the air as it is deposited in those rings, with thousands of different concentrations, miraculously the same on opposite sides of the earth (because the dendrochronologies are on opposite sides of the earth) in perfect synchronization. Here is the correlation between marine varves, tree rings and 14C levels:
So your claim is that all three different systems occur in perfect synchrony in less than a day, have yet to show any mechanism to cause this perfect 3-way correlation without it being due to the reality that time flux is not a tenable position for anyone but the most deluded creationist. Note that you need a system for creating the marine varves that operates faster than particles are known to settle -- and at the same time sort between foraminifera and clay -- in water ... because of their respective settling rates ... in microseconds. ... The result should be that they admit being belief based and not really knowing after all. Anything more than religion dressed as science to offer? Sorry, your case is massively insufficient, immature, and facile, it's just assertion and delusional opinion, repeated and repeated and repeated. Repetition does not improve a false argument, it just demonstrates that it is delusional. The result is that you would be soundly mocked, derided and laughed at, if you tried to tell the scientists that they were wrong just because you said so. Fail again. Because you have not idea what you are up against ... because you haven't read the thread. Because you have no idea how to do science. Because all you know is belief, ... so that is why you try to pretend science is belief. It isn't. Science is discoverable independent of belief, and there are many instances where different scientists have come to the same conclusion, even from different evidence: Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography came to the same conclusions about evolution as Darwin from entirely different evidence, even though they were contemporaries, and then acquaintances after the fact. Curiously I know of no belief system that has arisen independently but ending up with the same beliefs. This is the major difference between science and belief: one can be re-created from scratch, the other can't. Heck there are even different Christian sects that end up with different beliefs based on the same single source. So many different sects in every religion. They keep diverging, not consolidating the way science does based on what the objective empirical evidence shows. This ends today's example to forum readers of why creationist arguments are no competition for scientific evidence based ones. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : typoby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The science that they want to have is a cafeteria variety, one in which they can cherry-pick what they want and ignore what they don't like. After all, isn't that how they approach the Bible, cherry-picking out of context what they like while ignoring what they don't like? ... Indeed. This is how you get evangelicals not just endorsing cheating pedophile serial sexual predator Dumpty Trumpty, but hailing him as a new messiah (vs the antichrist as they labelled Obama). Because abortion of empty sac conceptions is the single issue of concern ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You want pictures, read the thread. So rather than post a pic of tree rings post 5000 years old from a living or once living tree with rings that span that time, you say they are hiding in the thread somewhere!? Ha. No, I am simply saying that IF you actually read the thread you would find the evidence. If this is hiding, then it is hiding it in plain sight for anyone/everyone to see. This is why other readers will see your argument fails -- they can read the threads and see the evidence. But you -- obviously -- have not read the thread, and more to the point have no intention of doing so, for that would mean confronting the actual evidence. This is the WORST argument creationist make. Instead of confronting the evidence they avoid it with simpleton comments like this. Another reason creationist arguments fail, over and over and over. Fail Fail Fail creationists fail to confront the evidence of old age. enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There is no point in replying to someone who repeatedly doesn't read what is said.
Notice Message 735 has been ignored, but a one liner is posted, supposedly in reply to Message 737, but ignores the point of that post as well. Too much reality? Too much Science? Evidence? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
From post 735. "The iridium was deposited, following the meteor impact.." The crater may have been a fountain of the deep with the impact coming from below to above. You are entitled to your beliefs. Don't pretend your beliefs were not addressed Curiously this "what if cows could fly" comment still fails to address the actual evidence of this thread and certainly is still no answer to Message 735. From Message 735:
This thread is not so much about the different ways to measure past time, but the correlations and consistencies between the different systems.
Equals 1,686 posts made since March 2004, and not one creationist has refuted the data, or even mounted a serious challenge to the correlations. No one needs to refute Santa stories, or your belief based stories! All they need to do is show they are mere belief based fabrications. Then . Do . So. That is what you have been asked to do from day 1: substantiate your argument with evidence. ie SHOW YOUR WORK I am not pretending when I say this has not been answered.
Message 735 also says:
... Same belief used for all yes all and I mean all so called correlations. ... Except that this fails to explain why there are correlations between entirely different systems. For instance if you twist magic time to cause thousands of tree rings to grow in one day, then you also need a mechanism to change the 14C content in the air as it is deposited in those rings, with thousands of different concentrations, miraculously the same on opposite sides of the earth (because the dendrochronologies are on opposite sides of the earth) in perfect synchronization. Here is the correlation between marine varves, tree rings and 14C levels:
So your claim is that all three different systems occur in perfect synchrony in less than a day, have yet to show any mechanism to cause this perfect 3-way correlation without it being due to the reality that time flux is not a tenable position for anyone but the most deluded creationist. Note that you need a system for creating the marine varves that operates faster than particles are known to settle -- and at the same time sort between foraminifera and clay -- in water ... because of their respective settling rates ... in microseconds. I am not pretending when I say this has not been answered.
... You are entitled to your beliefs. Don't pretend your beliefs were not addressed. What has not been addresses is the evidence. Facts. Objective reality. Belief has nothing to do with those. So I'm not pretending when I say not one piece of evidence on this thread has been addressed by you. All you have done is post "pie in the sky" comments and ignore/deny the evidence that is there. Curiously, that sounds like a tacit admission that you have no evidence, no theory and thus no argument, no refutation for the evidence of old age, no refutation for evidence that no world wide flood occurred during times covered by the data. Your only worth on this thread is to demonstrate again how incapable creationists are at refuting the evidence of reality, the reality that the earth is very, very, very old and that there is not one piece of evidence for a global flood.
The crater may have been a fountain of the deep with the impact coming from below to above. ... Nope. You may be ignorant, but that makes a different kind of crater, one that isn't lined with fused glass. Again, you could have done research on this, but like most creationists you don't. Because you think belief doesn't need reality. Again, a teaching moment: you don't even pause to look up what impact craters look like before winging another ad hoc fantasy. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The proof is in the pudding. The models of creation science has offered are against the record God offered. Time to face the fact that different spirits are behind both. As for the 'oh, science gave us gidgets' nonsense, face the fact that all that science deals with or 'gives' us is here and now. Nothing to do with creation or origins. Curiously, this thread is about age measuring systems, not religion. The data is agostic and readily available to anyone who wants to investigate it. From Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A), Message 712 quote: Now I am reposting this here because this is one place where you have made your claim about time. These are questions that you continually fail to answer. Because you have no answer. You have no evidence, you have no hypothesis, you have no argument that is scientific. All you have is delusion, fantasy and wishful thinking and hand-waving denial of the world around you being very, very, very old. The evidence is in this thread. If you cannot answer those questions, then no matter how much you bluster and stamp your feet, the evidence remains unrefuted. As long as the evidence remains unrefuted, and you offer no counter evidence, the conclusions based on the objective evaluation of the evidence remain unrefuted. As long as the conclusions based on the objective evaluation of the evidence remain unrefuted and you offer no alternative conclusion based on the evidence, their validity remains unrefuted. Neither denial nor fantasy are refutations. Your personal opinion is not able to change reality. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Curiously, this thread is about religion ... Fail. That is a childish ploy to avoid the evidence. Or an admission that you don't know how science operates.
Tree rings...no. Fast growing trees would not have rings that took a long time to grow, however similar the rings may look to you. Corals? No. Similar reasons to above. Fail. That is just an assertion, not evidence based comment: where is your evidence that all trees grew faster? Corals? Faster growing trees (as in the tropics) don't form annual rings at all. Corals grow daily rings.
Radioactive decay in the past? ... That is what the evidence shows.
... Prove there was any then as there now is? Science doesn't prove things, it disproves faulty arguments -- with evidence that shows it is faulty -- but the best it can do is recognize a theory as the best explanation currently available to explain the evidence. All the evidence from decades of scientific study that attempted to show differences in the past have failed. You claim otherwise? Then where is your evidence? What, you don't have any? I'm sorry. Fail. You haven't demonstrated that there is anything in your argument to disprove it is just an assertion, an opinion, a fantasy. Science progresses by disproving hypothesis that are attempting to explain evidence. You don't have evidence, so you can't have a hypothesis based on evidence.
In all cases, you appeal to belief. Nope. I can touch, feel and measure tree rings for instance. Other people can touch, feel and measure tree rings. In fact this has been done multiple times as part of the scientific review. They get the same results. That is how science works. It's not belief, it is recognizing what the evidence shows. It is building hypothesis to explain the evidence, and then it testing the hypothesis to try and prove it wrong. A tested hypothesis is a theory that is used to make predictions, and those predictions further test the theory. The theory is never "believed" even after passing many tests, rather it is recognized as the best explanation currently available for the evidence. In all cases* you assert fantasy rather than deal with the evidence. * - not one of your "cases" actually refers to any of the specific evidence provided in the thread. Thanks for playing. All you are doing is accomplishing three things:
Notice how you once again avoid answering these basic questions that should be easy if you had a real argument and not fantasy:
Message 752: From Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A), Message 712 quote: Now I am reposting this here because this is one place where you have made your claim about time. These are questions that you continually fail to answer. If you had answers you might have an argument, but without them you don't have anything but delusional babbling. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : addedby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Curiously, this thread is about religion, and your same state past belief that you failed to support in any way. The time for denial is over. You are now asked to show any one of your correlations that does not depend on there having been a same set of forces and laws on earth in the past? Tree rings...no. Fast growing trees would not have rings that took a long time to grow, however similar the rings may look to you. Corals? No. Similar reasons to above. Radioactive decay in the past? Prove there was any then as there now is? In all cases, you appeal to belief. Here's the real problem with your posts: Curiously, I wish there were some actual substance to them to debate, a proper challenge to the information I have spent considerable time and effort for over 13+ years to investigate, provide and explain, as a challenge to creationists to their fundamental belief in a young earth (or some variation thereof). This information is agnostic, as is all objective empirical evidence. It just doesn't care what you believe, it is there to be recognized or ignored, but it is not altered in any way by any person's opinion or belief. Your particular blatherings do not even touch the surface of the evidence. There is nothing in your posts worth more than a cursory comment: it is not based on evidence, it is not based on a hypothesis based on evidence, it is not based of a conclusion of a hypothesis that is not based on evidence. It is smoke trying to hide the evidence (or hide from the evidence). There is nothing to debate. Smoke is not debate. So forgive me for expecting more than you are able to deliver, for expecting more from creationists. Meanwhile the total lack of refutation that disproves a single post or a single correlation continues to add post after post after post that demonstrates the validity of this thread. Sorry, but that's reality. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
razd writes: So your claim is that all three different systems occur in perfect synchrony in less than a day, have yet to show any mechanism to cause this perfect 3-way correlation without it being due to the reality that time flux is not a tenable position for anyone but the most deluded creationist. Note that you need a system for creating the marine varves that operates faster than particles are known to settle -- and at the same time sort between foraminifera and clay -- in water ... because of their respective settling rates ... in microseconds. I am not pretending when I say this has not been answered. Now looking at the text before you say things were not answered, I see you claim it was formed in less than a day? Explain? YOUR claim was that tree rings formed extra fast in your magical flux time fantasy. To bring the data into the squished timescale means condensing everything older than historical records -- which is kind of difficult when those records extend to 2660 BCE or 4,618 years ago and you want the whole timescale to fit inside 4500 years. Even allowing the flood date to wiggle out to 4618 years ago means a massive compression of all dates after that -- including the evidence for tree rings, and marine varves. These are the consequences of your claim that make it untenable.
that makes a different kind of crater, one that isn't lined with fused glass Impact force from either direct would fuse glass. ... Except that one would create a bowl under the downward impact and the other would blow the glass away into the atmosphere.
... Walt Brown ... Is a charlatan that only fools gullible people.
... made up And the evidence for this is? The cause of this was? Making up stuff is not science, as you should know by now.
... So, if you can rule that out, fine. I don't need it to be so. ... quote: Just one part of the many problems with his ideas.
... You see I have many options. ... Yes, you can look at the data honestly or you can pretend it isn't valid and make up stories. Curiously, when you do science there is one option: follow the evidence.
... But since you claim something maybe you better show that it is known that the impact was from above? The bowl of fused glass and other is at the bottom of the crater.
quote: So not just fused glass, but a number of features unique to impact craters.
I prefer not to take a fixed stance on an issue until the evidence is clear. Science does not take a fixed stance, it follows the evidence to determine what the evidence shows. when the evidence changes the science changes. You prefer to play games rather that learn science. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No. It is my claim you do not know and have chosen simply to believe in a certain state in the past. N dates you use have any other worth or reason for existing other than that belief. So don't know my dates that try and use bible dates. So I guess you didn't see where a biblical date was confirmed ... oh that's right, you haven't read the thread. What is the boundary for time into the past -- the "fishbowl" for times past? How do you know? How can we tell you are right? Intelligent people want to know. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
quote:Ha ha ha. Missing rings. Great. Pity you didn't take his advice and read the wiki article. The rings that are missing are at the early central core of the tree stump, where they have rotted or been eroded away. Because it is the center that is missing we know the tree was older. Further, "missing rings" do occur when core samples are used, when the weather is sufficiently severe that growth only occurs on one side of the tree and the core misses that section. This has been verified by several methods -- scientific -- that you would not be interested in learning about (they are detailed at the start of this thread). Another Bristlecone Pine has been found that was documented by coring to be 5062 years old in 2012, so it would be 5068 years old today. List of oldest trees - Wikipedia
Well, let;s make it easy can you show a good close up of any rings over 4500 years? Ha. The ages are normally determined by taking multiple core samples, something you would know if you read anything about dendrochronology instead of wallowing in ignorance. Prometheus is unique in having been cut down. The core samples are usually kept in a lab, where their count tally can be verified. Of course if you are serious, you could contact the forestry service and get permission to make your own core. You won't, though because you are in denial of reality. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
You see, I place the flood at 70,000,000 years ago or so, in science years. ... Based on what? What's your evidence?
... In actual real years it was 4500. So a year measured by scientific means is not an actual year. Fascinating delusion. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
My guess as to when the flood was is based on many facets of science and the bible and history. In other words it is made up and could not be reproduced by anyone else (a key element of actual science processes).
Measuring a year in the far past on earth by this current nature is nothing more than a statement of faith. Except that it is independently reproducible by others and that it cross-references with other systems. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Missing rings do occur in trees grown in this nature. To assume it was also true in the past nature is nothing more than blind faith in a same state past. Sadly -- for you -- it can be documented by comparing two independent dendrochronologies. This was done with the Bristlecone pines, and two missing rings were documented. From EvC Forum: The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1)
Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale(3)
quote: The time scale used here is the same "extended scale," where 8000 equals 1 BCE, so 8001-5859 = 2142 BCE and 8001 - 5330 = 2671 BCE. The "M" designates the Master chronology above. Again this thread is about correlations ... and if you actually read it you would have a better idea of the kinds and depth of the evidence that puts your claims to shame. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
All correlations rest on the same baseless belief. Repeating a previously addressed assertion based on your belief alone, is not a refutation of the evidence presented, or the argument against it, rather it is just stubborn denial by someone who cannot accept facts.
Missing rings cannot be documented past 4500 years. ... But that would obviously be your magical belief years and not the real actual scientific years:
creation writes: Message 816 You see, I place the flood at 70,000,000 years ago or so, in science years. In actual real years it was 4500. You just have it backwards. Let me correct that for you:
creation: You see, I place the flood at 70,000,000 real actual years ago or so, in science years. In There, much better, yes?
... You seek to invoke a belief that because today there are missing rings, that this has to apply to an unknown nature also in the past. Talk about invoking a belief ... this is just more of the fantasy that you (and you alone) have created to avoid the cognitive dissonance caused by the real actual evidence of reality. Again, with no evidence of this fantasy concoction having any basis in reality, it can safely be ignored by science. Enjoy
Message 832: No year 5000 years ago is independently producible. As this would be your belief years and not real actual scientific years, it too is a meaningless statement
Message 833: Today there are missing rings because of rot. Not in the former nature times though. You just believe there must have been for no reason. And again, as this is based solely on your personal delusion, it is another meaningless assertion. Enjoy
Message 834 to dwise1: Looking at the times given in Gen for Noah in the flood, and looking at Revelation we do see a 360 day year actually. Based on 12 lunar months of 30 days each. A calendar that needed frequent correction to match the solar year.
quote: So again you make a meaningless assertion that doesn't match reality. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : adding responses to other postsby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024