Summations Only

Why not call on known processes and mechanisms?

I guess you've never heard two Christians arguing about the Bible ...

It isn't that important, I'm judging from the diagrams I've seen and it's not even important enough to go back and get those exact either. The point is that eras are built on the rocks, however they happen to be built, and if you want to educate me on it then you are going to have to do it. I hardly ever go out at all, and then only to medical appointments, just the way it is. .

Perhaps the Phyllum is the Kind and that's what the creationist was talking about. For me to say what I mean may require that I NOT use the terms "correctly" according to your paradigm.Being able to interbreed is a criterion for defining a species from the OE/Evo paradigm, which is meaningless when defining a Kind. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

IOW, there are so many things you could learn. Of course, you can never allow that, so you can never learn anything. La, LA,LA, LA.LA.

there are lots of Christians in name only.

Such as YOU?

You probably meant to be addressing me rather than edge?I not only have to learn the standard interpretation of everything I have to be able to see how it contradicts the true history of the earth.

What a fucking hypocrite you are!

{Content hidden (use "peek" if you feel the need). 48 hour suspension. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Content hidden (use "peek" if you feel the need). 48 hour suspension.

And, as per the usual YEC, you can determine who they are, yes?

I see that it's not important to you, but words do have meaning and I'm not sure that you know the meanings. I don't even know what mean by 'built on the rocks'. For all I know you could be right, but your record of misinterpreting and miscommunicating make that extremely doubtful.I'm pretty sure that you have no clue as to how the geological time scale was constructed. I'm sorry to hear that, but reading YEC screed doesn't give you an iota of insight into geology. In fact, some would say that you cannot do geology without having spent time out in the field.

quote:

---

How very strange, dw, that you would allow yourself to make such a deceitful argument, Surely you know that by "time periods" I mean THE time periods such as Cambrian, Devonian, Mississippian, Permian, Triassic and so on. It's a piece of deceitful sophistry to use the term to refer to any period of time from a minute to an hour to a day to millions or billions of years

---

But it is not deceitful. As I pointed out above Message 1804 the time periods are defined by the geological systems. If a geological system turned out to have been deposited in a minute or an hour then the period would be revised to that duration.I hope you will have the honesty to apologise for your false accusation.

quote:

---

Only the historical sciences, not the true sciences.

---

You are wrong. Significant changes to the radioactive decay rate are held to be impossible under any conditions that could be found on Earth, even in the distant past. Changing the rates of different radioactive decays so that they still gave the sample radiometric dates (within the error bounds) is more unlikely still.In short, unless the revision to the ages worked within physics as it is currently understood it would require revisions to physics. And it is very unlikely that that is even possible.

quote:

---

But what happens here is that creationist ideas are often not tested in themselves, other problems not yet understood are often thrown at us instead,

---

This leads to exactly the point. Creationists, since they are not interested in the truth, take the apologetic appraisals ch of dealing with things piecemeal, not bothering to see how things fit together. Scientists, because they are interested in the truth do care about how things fit together. If Creationist ideas run foul of other unsolved problems then too bad for creationists. Objecting to legitimate responses simply shows the weakness of your position.And of course those objections will frequently based in true science so you should accept them as legitimate, right ?

Well, you've been suspended because of this post, which is only right, but I see that you actually claim not to know what I meant by "time periods" though I would have thought I'd made it clear. One recent place is in Message 1801 where I at least give a typical time frame: I'm sorry if nevertheless I haven't been clear but I couldn't have guessed anyone would misunderstand since I've been using the term for a long time now to refer to the official time periods of the Geological Timescale.