|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation Evidence Museums... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
almeyda,
There is no dating method that proves something to be 65 million yrs!..Its based on assumptions..Assumptions that the earth formed billions of yrs ago therefore layers means millions of yrs,dead bones means they extinct 80 million yrs ago.. OMG, no wonder you are so easily misled. There is nothing that proves anything in science. There is only evidence. And when that evidence is available in sufficient quantities it reduces the tentativity to such a degree it becomes unreasonable to withhold consent. Everything in science is based upon assumptions. The question is, are they testable. In the case of radiometric dating the question is YES! But why we're on the subject, what "evidence" (& I think that's worth a snigger at this stage) supports a 6,000 year old earth that isn't based upon assumption? Hell, what evidence is there for a 6,000 year old earth, at all?! I can't even say you have double standards because you haven't presented any legitimate evidence to apply different standards to. Try this for size:
quote: Care to comment on the points raised? Now, what is it now? Ah, yes, FOR THE SEVENTH TIME, PLEASE PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH, AS OPPOSED TO CIVILISATION, IS 6,000 YEARS OLD. Mark This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-10-2004 04:26 AM "Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
I haven't kept up with what's happening in this topic, but I do know that the original theme was rather shakey, and seemingly of very limited discussion potential.
I must suspect that most of what has happened since page 1 would have been better in topics elsewhere. Might the various parties be interested in searching the index of active topics for better places for their discussions? That said, someday I need to get this topic read, to find out what wild turns it has taken. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 497 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Or, you could just ask someone that's been participating on this thread long enough that you trust to tell you what the heck is going on.
The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
We are arguing over which ones right Evolution or Creation..Yep that should update you to where we are...
MARK24 - Creationists arent as much based on assumptions because they can base it on what God says. And when this proves to be right they can almost call it fact. Yes in a way they can. As for science not all science is assumptions. Its pretty much fact that if we jump off a cliff we will go down. Evolution however relies heavily on assumptions because there isnt much experiments to prove such unless theres interpretation of facts and a framework. So if you review AiGs evidence and realise how consistent it is with what God says then you can say yes its true just like God said. What can evolutionists say? Besides there is no truth and we will never know truth. Creationists start with answers so its not science??? . What if the answers are consistent with the evidence? Does that still mean its not science?...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
almeyda,
MARK24 - Creationists arent as much based on assumptions because they can base it on what God says. And your assumption is that the bible is god's word, an untestable, unfalsifiable assumption, that renders any corollary argument or hypothesis as unscientific. Your argument disappears in a puff of logic. Wasn't that your objection, assumption? What is this, some sort of wierd double standard? My assumptions are tested to a very high degree, & yours are pie in the sky. THAT is the difference between religion & science.
And when this proves to be right they can almost call it fact. FOR THE EIGHTH TIME PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR A 6,000 YEAR OLD EARTH. Then, & only then, can we call it fact.
Its pretty much fact that if we jump off a cliff we will go down. Nope, it's a testable assumption based upon observation.
Creationists start with answers so its not science??? . Correct. You don't have the answers.
What if the answers are consistent with the evidence? Does that still mean its not science?... But the answers aren't consistent with the evidence, you would have given me evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old by now if that were true. At this stage I think it's fair to point out when it comes to the existence of scientifically valid evidence that would lead us to conclude that the earth is 6,000 years old; there is none. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 05-10-2004 08:15 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Moose,
I'd let it run, it shouldn't go on for much longer & then it'll drop off of the bottom. Alternatively, if you so desire, I'll submit a new topic. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
Your assumptions are based to a very high degree?? All yous have are evolutionists opinions..And the facts? well they dont speak for themselves. And just about everything evolutinists say happened cannot be proven. Do you really see evolution in the fossil record? I would of expected a bit more evidence than what there is. But now they have punctuated quilibrium. Wow! thats such a great way to explain the absence of evidence. Makes sense if you ask me!. The fossil evidence actually fits the biblical frame better where animals dont change into complete different animals but stay in there own kind.
I really think that jumping off a cliff and going down isnt an assumption. As long as we are here on earth this will be fact. Evolution however cannot be observed or called fact. Just opinions and interpretations. We start with answers so its not science? And you say correct you dont with answers??? I just said we do have answers because were basing it on the God who was there and you say we dont have answers? If the evidence is consistent with what God says which AiG proves then i think we have answers. Evolutionists just have we will never know truth. But creation is wrong! creation is not science!. You never know truth so you will never know evolution is fact or even happened. And for the evidence ill have a topic up soon hopefully.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
almeyda,
Your assumptions are based to a very high degree?? All yous have are evolutionists opinions.. Nope, I have provided evidence to the confidence of 70,000,000 : 1 PLUS that radiometric dating is accurate to within a percent or two. I have also provided evidence with a confidence limit of 13,272,064,019,753,086 : 1 that the YEC timeline is false. Not an opinion. A mathematical FACT.
And the facts? well they dont speak for themselves. Unless you live in a world of coincidence, they do.
And just about everything evolutinists say happened cannot be proven. Nothing is proven in science, so 70,000,000 : 1 will have to do.
Do you really see evolution in the fossil record? I would of expected a bit more evidence than what there is. Really?
quote: It is now incumbent on you to explain why evolutionary predictions are so clearly seen in the fossil record.
But now they have punctuated quilibrium. Wow! thats such a great way to explain the absence of evidence. It doesn't, it explains stasis. See The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by SJ Gould. Stasis is data.
The fossil evidence actually fits the biblical frame better where animals dont change into complete different animals but stay in there own kind. So why are evolutionary predictions over 300 cladograms matching stratigraphy with odds of 5.68*10^323:1, then? The fossil record is woefully incomplete, that's why there have been over a billion carrier pigeons at any given time & there isn't a solitary fossil of one.
Evolution however cannot be observed or called fact. Just opinions and interpretations. 5.68*10^323 is more than there are fundamental particles in the known universe. It doesn't get more FACT than this.
I just said we do have answers because were basing it on the God who was there and you say we dont have answers? If the evidence is consistent with what God says which AiG proves then i think we have answers. In which case you don't have the answers, you just believe you do.. The evidence I have shown you suggest a confidence limit that the K-T Tektites are ~65 million years old of over 70 million to one. There are no untested assumptions. The evidence I have shown you suggest a confidence limit that evolution occured of 5.68*10^323 : 1. There are no untested assumptions. Please explain how these FACTS fit into a creationist scenario? Creationism works by ignoring such massive (/understatement) falsifying evidence. The simple fact is you have no answer to the vast wealth of contradictory evidence that supports evolution, & at the same ime blows away a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Evolutionists just have we will never know truth. But creation is wrong! creation is not science!. You never know truth so you will never know evolution is fact or even happened. And for the evidence ill have a topic up soon hopefully. We both know you won't. You would have presented it here by now as you were asked, if you could. [altered by edit] All of your answers have been to ignore the evidence presented, & simply assert sans evidence that the evidence equally supports creationism when it is patently untrue. You are a living testament to the intellectual accident that is creationism. You wave away evidence without addressing it, & simply assert that what you say is true without evidence. If you accept a few illogical anecdotalisms, ignore valid contradictory evidence, then you think you are on intellectually safe ground in claiming "the evidence supports creation". You are not. A woman is killed with a knife in a department store. Security guards apprehend the man after witnessing the crime, by their watches it occurred at 10 PM. The stores video equipment also records the crime & puts the incident at 22.01. Subsequent DNA evidence matches the suspect, as do fingerprints. Your argument would be that video evidence can be tampered with, it can't be trusted. The mens watches requires too many assumptions to be be considered reliable; they go wrong, or had the wrong time to begin with. DNA? You don't think I trust the evolutionist conspiracy do you? No, the DNA could match at least 4 other men in the world, it must be thrown out on that basis. Fingerprints? Chuck 'em out. It is an assumption that everyones fingerprints are unique & so it must be inadmissible as evidence. Clearly the suspect is innocent. Good grief, they can't even pin down the time of the crime, who are they trying to fool? Of course, in the real world, the tentativity of the hypothesis that the suspect is guilty is very, very low. So it is with radiometric dating & evolution. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 05-11-2004 06:52 AM "Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
We both know you won't. You would have done it by now. alemyda has had new topic rights removed for the time being. Though I suppose s/he could have posted to the correlations topic in dating if he had an explanation for them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
He.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ned,
Though I suppose s/he could have posted to the correlations topic in dating if he had an explanation for them. It's not like I hadn't asked, why does it specifically need a new thread, why not here? Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ediacaran Inactive Member |
Now back to our regularly scheduled topic...
Sweeney, I have been to the Creation Evidences Museum in Texas a few times - it's hilarious to hear people who are quite serious when they make idiotic claims such as: Fire-breathing dragons are living dormant at the bottom of the seas, awaiting Armageddon. Rattlesnake bites used to be beneficial to people "before the Flood". The Earth was surrounded by a canopy of ice that was superconducting, ferromagnetic, and fiber optic. Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and left footprints in what is now the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas. Pre-flood humans would easily run 200 miles a day between what is now Glen Rose and what is now the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex. Self-proclaimed "Dr." Carl Baugh has built up quite a following at the Creation Evidences Museum, near Texas' Dinosaur Valley State Park near Glen Rose. Initially, Baugh's "museum" was in hut, then eventually moved to a mobile home, and the last time I went a few years ago, he had a double-wide trailer. Baugh's alleged science degrees are all bogus, from a series of unaccredited creationist "universities" - what are colloquially known as diploma mills set up by Baugh's friends, including at least 3 which were Churches. In fact, the picture of the "university" on Baugh's website is actually a photo of what was then Burleson Baptist Temple, which has been renamed The Church At Burleson, if I recall correctly (in Burleson, Texas). When I visited to check on Baugh's obviously bogus credentials, the church wasn't open that day - there were no signs indicating that the church was any kind of university from the outside, and nothing visible in the foyer that showed it to be a university. During the week, they did answer the phone with the university name. When pressed for details about the "university", they referred callers to creationist Clifford Wilson's "university" in Missouri, which was the source of their study materials. The double-wide museum has a collection of fossils and sideshow paraphenalia (such as a suit from someone once billed as the tallest man in the world, if I recall). There's a mural on one side depicting creation as Baugh sees it, and a fish tank with some fish (Pacu?) that are either related to pirhanas or are a species of pirhanas that are larger than usual (maybe some that eat mostly fruit). Baugh has an idea fixee that "pre-Flood" animals grew larger, and apparently some of his followers believe the fish have grown to extraordinary size through some simulation of pre-Flood conditions. Baugh has a medical hyperbaric chamber in the trailer that had two poisonous snakes (the "pre-Flood" atmosphere was supposed to be denser since it was contained within the ice canopy shell surrounding the Earth). Baugh had an oscilloscope attached to it sweeping a trace across for visual effect, apparently, since the test connectors weren't actually connected to anything. This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 05-27-2004 12:05 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024