Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unexpected Dates.
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 2 of 33 (16760)
09-06-2002 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by compmage
09-06-2002 9:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
Actual Subject: Dishonost...
[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-06-2002]

By edit: Quote truncated by Adminnemooseus - See entire quote in previous message
Kent Hovind been there (oops guess not he was in jail)? Anyway, you need to learn about what evolution really is, what the 2nd law of thermodynamics REALLY says and not bring out the same worn out litany of anti-evolutionary rhetoric. The fact that no one 'saw' things happened does not mean we are unable to piece together the story. If that were true, think of how many crimes would never be solved. Finally, if you want to trot out examples of fraud in science and claim that all science is bad---then you must also agree that there is fraud in religion and therefore all religion is bad. In short, why not study up on the subject and bring forth some reasonable arguments in support of your position. Christianity does not require that you 'disbelieve science'. Creation scientists have presented no evidence for their claims. They distort, manufacture and talk about evolution but eschew open discussion on the issue in the scientific literature. The scientific community is oblivious to their claims because creationists appeal to the lay person because they know emotional appeals work better.
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 09-06-2002]
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by compmage, posted 09-06-2002 9:56 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by compmage, posted 09-06-2002 11:29 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 9 of 33 (16846)
09-07-2002 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by frank
09-06-2002 7:25 PM


Hanno,
Two quick points. (1) How do you know what my religious or scientific backgrounds are? and (2) What makes you think that atheists cannot be knowledgeable about the bible?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by frank, posted 09-06-2002 7:25 PM frank has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 17 of 33 (17087)
09-10-2002 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by compmage
09-10-2002 3:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
Well, actually, all my sources are secondary. Unfortunatly, I do not have the time to do the thorough research, because I'm not a scientist. However, I would like to see evolusionist scientists and creationist scientists go head to head on these matters, instead of just accussing each other of misinterpretation on these matters.
But I would love to know if this IS misinterpretation. As I said in the beginning. Evolusionist should admit error if something is disproved by creationists, BUT ALSO, creationists should not use evidence that has all ready been disproved.
I'll be doing some more reading. I'll be comming back later for more questions.
PS. I am aware of Carbon datings limits. But wouldn't It then show an infinite reading, instead of 36000 years?
Cheers
Hanno

JM: Now that your blitzkrieg into the forum is over, maybe we can talk about the reliability of your secondary sources. Number 1, regarding the claims about C-14 dating. I have investigated two studies by Andrew Snelling (Frequently Asked ) and found some serious flaws with his analysis. I won't bother to repeat them here because they are discussed in detail on the site. Secondly, depending on the lab and equipment, a C-14 date of 36000 years might be the limit. Your assertion that the age should give infinity is specifically incorrect though grossly accurate. Why? Depending on the equipment and technique used, an 'infinite age' for C-14 dating IS 36000-55000 years (essentially the limit for the technique). As for your assertions regarding a 1968 paper from JGR, you might want to note that some samples contain excess argon. Sometimes dating doesn't work. Heck, sometimes my watch does not run properly, but I do not conclude that because I have a bad watch, all watches must be wrong. You might want to consider how one derives consistent radiometric ages (One of the main objections to radiometric dating ). Finally, your attempt to marry communism to evolution is laughable. Bilogical evolutionary theory says nothing about the views expressed by idealogues. As you or someone else has noted, true Communism has a goal of 'Utopia' where no one is oppressed and all work for the common good.
Cheers
Joe Meert
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 3:13 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 11:58 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024