Age Correlations and an Old Earth

Ok, please read the topic title again and get back to it. Genesis interpretation is not it.

Back on topic or off the thread!Offer clear reasons for any conclusions you want to arrive at with supporting evidence. No "could have", "might have", "maybes".Do not use Walt unless he directly speaks of correlations.These are not suggestions. If you want to keep posting here then stick to them.

Since this post is totally off topic here and is making absurd statements I don't think we need you posting here for a bit.(added by edit)whatever no longer has posting priviledges to Dates and Dating forum. I'm sorry to remove someone but there is no sign he will ever actually contribute anything of value. Unless something changes I will consider this suspension indefinite.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 07-08-2004 12:20 AM

As reviewed in the suggestions and questions forum.Please note that is where you take such issues next time.To repeat:So you get priviledges back for a bit whatever. However, consider each post carefully. It must be on topic. It must not have made up crap as an answer. It must deal with what is actually at issue. In other words it must not continue as you have been doing. Not in this thread at least.You may start out by explaining, in your own, words what the issue behind this thread is. If you fail to do that you will not keep your posting authorizations.

And since the topic of this thread is the correlations you will not post here again. You only have priviledges here if you stay strickly on topic. and, as has been noted, you have NOT answered the issue of correlations of methods AT ALL. Any answer must explain the correlations.I did ask you to explain what that meant. You didn't. It becomes more likly that you don't even know what it means. Do not post here again unless you are prepared to both explain, in your own words, what the issue is and stick strickly to it.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 07-08-2004 10:21 AM

There is a recognized use of the word "scientism" Crash. And I think WT has it about right.While it is true that science has been able to broaden the areas in which it is applicable I don't think it is worth arguing that it is the universal panacea for all things.RAZD should have qualified his statement regrading science being the only way to truth.It is, in my opinion, the only way to sort out incorrect ideas from perhaps correct ideas in certain areas of study.The fact that the issues under discussion (age of earth) is one area where science is the only way to get rid of wrong answers and continue to improve doesn't mean that WT is wrong when he says that there is a philosophy that can take the use of science too far. Where WT is wrong is that that idea has anything at all do to with the topic of this thread. He hasn't offered any reason why any other approach should be trusted other than his say so.RAZD was a little extreme in what he said. WT took that too far if he thinks that the scientism issue has any relevance to this thread and you will carry it way off topic if you keep going.Thanks.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-07-2004 05:28 PM

It is probable that you didn't see my 5:28 post before posting this. However, you have had time now.Get back on topic!You may also consider it necessary to supply decent evidence for what you post WT. If you continue to fail to do this then it will mean you will have to be put into a learning environment untill you learn how to debate.

Right, stop it!

The problem is that you don't supply evidence. If I'm wrong about this how about pointing out a few places where you've done something other than assert or quote other people's unsupported assertions.I'd like you to do that in Suggestions rather than here. This isn't the place. Thanks.If you don't want to bother with that then it is probably best that you don't post here any more. You haven't been able to stick to this topic much at all anyway.

You have never substantiated that claim. I have suggested that you do so or stop making it. I will start up a thread for you to make such a substantiation. If you bring it up anywhere else after that is done I will remove your privileges to whatever forum you bring it up in.see:
Message 1I welcome any suggestions you have as to changes to that topic. You can make them here and I will incorporate them.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-12-2004 09:06 PM

It doesn't assume that it is wrong. It says that it has not been supported.Unfortunately, you can't yet post anything there.You can post some suggestion here or wait till it is promoted.I did NOT say that it has not philosophy underlying it. You have suggested that the interpretation of evidence is tainted by that philosophy. That is what you have to support by showing how the interpretation is tainted and how a different interpretation can be shown.It is unfortunate that it is difficult to separate the admin mode (expecting support) and the non admin mode. You may point out where you think a line has been crossed.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-12-2004 09:30 PM

The appropriate place would be in the interpretation forum waiting to be moved for you.You say that someone has to prove that worldview is not what is producing the results of science. You made an accusation. You have to defend it or stop making it.You are also to stop cluttering up other threads with it. This is not the thread unless you show exactly how you would explain the correlations with the interpretation of your worldview.It seems a bit silly anyway. This thread is about dating. You've agreed that the earth is old. Unless you disagree with the dating methodologies used why don't you just stay out of this thread?

For the second time recently. A strong topic warning.

You put a new start in the PNT and I'll promote it when I next pass by the computer. An hour and some.