Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery - What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw)
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 48 (635449)
09-29-2011 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Chuck77
09-29-2011 5:32 AM


Well, we have direct evidence that Buz most certainly has been shown that at the time while Adam would have been alive nothing was much different than it is today.
Oetzi would have been a contemporary of Adam and we can test what conditions were, what plants and animals were around, what folk ate and wore and some of their customs and tools and the genetics of plants, animal and humans and there is nothing to indicate anything much different than today.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Chuck77, posted 09-29-2011 5:32 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 23 of 48 (639261)
10-29-2011 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Coyote
10-29-2011 12:55 PM


dating the dating
What Creationists tend to forget is confirmation.
The whole issue of dating has been a series of unrelated methodologies that time after time have confirmed the age of the earth.
First was simply positional dating, older stuff under younger stuff.
Then a greater understanding of process made stuff even older. To get sand stone you first had to raise up a mountain, wear it down and then compress the small pieces into larger conglomerates.
Then came radiometric dating in all its many different versions and each new method developed confirmed the earlier findings.
Even more recently methods like the various luminescence tests have once again confirmed ages.
The important point is that each totally different, totally unrelated method returns the same results adding increased confidence.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 10-29-2011 12:55 PM Coyote has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 25 of 48 (639265)
10-29-2011 6:58 PM


More making stuff up from Buz
Buz writes:
The Biblical record denotes the breaking up of subterranean water. It would be a given assumption that extensive volcanic activity would have ensued globally, via a catastrophe so extensive as the Noaic flood producing the igneous rock Metamorphic rock, as I understand can include igneous or other rock, crystals, etc formed via heat and pressure.
This is another example of just making stuff up by Buz.
Creationists just seem to pull stuff out of the dark places, in this case volcanoes and then throwing in more excrement in the form of saying that volcanism would somehow add pressure.
When there is magma intrusions they also leave very clear evidence and can most certainly be identified.
But does Buz provide any evidence to support any of his assertions or innuendos?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024