Summations Only

quote:

---

Those who knew the Bible wouldn't have believed their nonsense, but you could be right that I too wouldn't have been in a position to know it. Doesn't change the fact that what they believed was certainly unbiblical and if they'd been true to the Bible we might have been spared a lot of other kinds of weirdness.

---

It is true that if they’d realised that Genesis wasn’t literally accurate and stopped trying to fit the evidence to it, we’d have been spared a lot of unBiblical weirdness. But the same is true of modern creationists - and you especially.

quote:

---

What's really really hard for you guys to grasp is that the "old ways of thinking" are exactly what the ToE and Old Earthism perpetuate. Because the historical sciences are nothing but wild imagination.

---

Yawn. Look Faith we get that you are a lying hypocrite. What you don’t get is that we don’t see it as a reason to believe you.

Right. But again, interpretting the words of others differently than intend is dishonest. We all know that words and phrases have more than one meaning.You would, of course like to pretend that we are all equally as stupid and evidence free as you show yourself to be. But such is not the case.

They outright contradicted what the Bible says, that God ceased His creation work on the seventh day. They have Him continuing to invent fossils and creating creatures to live on isolated islands long after Creation Week. Nothing I've said contradicts the Bible, it builds on it.

No, I do not have to disprove dating methods, all I have to do is show that the preponderance of evidence is against the Old Earth. I'm making headway. Eventually the dating methocs will be disproved. You all seem to forget that all science starts out knowing just about nothing. You can't expect a new investigation to have all the answers.

That is the exact opposite of what I said. They did NOT trust Genesis and that was the problem. If they HAD realized that Genesis is literally true and started explaining the observed evidence by what it says, THAT's when we'd have been apared the unbiblical weirdness. They's have known God wouldn't just invent fossils, because that sort of thing is not in His character, or created a brand new creature after Creation Week.And I'm very serious in saying that the historical sciences (Old Earth Geological Timescale and the ToE) are the "old style of thinking" and not modern science.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh get off it NN. Coyote was misusing the term "belief."

quote:

---

That is the exact opposite of what I said

---

So? I’m supposed to automatically agree with you?

quote:

---

They did NOT trust Genesis and that was the problem. If they HAD realized that Genesis is literally true and started explaining the observed evidence by what it says, THAT's when we'd have been apared the unbiblical weirdness

---

That’s obviously false since the Bible doesn’t provide an adequate explanation. That’s why you have to produce your unBiblical weirdness.

quote:

---

And I'm very serious in saying that the historical sciences (Old Earth Geological Timescale and the ToE) are the "old style of thinking" and not modern science.

---

That only makes it more of a joke. You really should learn to understand what you are talking about.

quote:

---

Oh get off it NN. Coyote was misusing the term "belief.

---

No, he wasn’t. You’re just making a big fuss about your strange interpretation of what he said.

You do if your objective is to convince anyone that you're right and science is wrong. Otherwise, you're free to howl at the moon. Well I agree that it helps your case to have ANY evidence at all to support your proposition. But as you haven't and science has direct evidence that you agree you can not argue against, it's case closed. You're making no headway at all. No-one here thinks that you've demonstrated anything except how wrong you are. What you're doing is making yourself and your cause look very foolish. Of course you are impressing yourself, but that's not the game is it? By whom and how? Creationists have all given up on it. Correct science started out knowing nothing about radioactive decay, now it knows a large amount - including how to date stuff. What new investigation? Science has the answers for dating and has for many years. And, it confirms the earlier data we had before radiometric dating was known. It didn't have to, but it did. Funny coincidence?

You did not HAVE any "data" before radiometric dating, all you had was a lot of typical conjectures and ruminations and fantasies about what coulda shoulda woulda musta happened. The radiometric dating did sorta seem to confirm it but you all have to overlook error to make it do that and there's bound to be built-in error in the method due to bias too. Somebody will eventually come along and prove this.

But you should disprove radiometric dating if you are going to continue to claim that we have no evidence. At convincing yourself, sure. Are you now a fortune teller? Yes, and then we learn more. That's is why YEC was abandoned as a theory over a century ago.

I don't say you have NO evidence, I've often said you have various kinds of dating evidence but no other kind of evidence.As I just got through explaining to Tangle, YEC was NOT "abandoned" because YEC was never practiced, and what "creationists" were doing was unbiblical.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's obviously wrong but never mind, let's say that it isn't, just for a laugh. But all you have is exactly the same set of facts that that I have but you're making different shit up about it.So now we're equal, I've thrown away 200 years of multidisciplinary science and you've thrown away what you made up in your head last week. We're equal. (In your towering mind only of course.)But look! I have this totally independant and direct proof of an old earth supported by several different and independent direct measurements that all coincide. What's more you accept that you and no other creationist can find anything wrong with the analysis.We have the dating, we win.

Dating is all you have though, and it will eventually be shown to be full of error. Meanwhile the REASONABLE evidence is in favor of the Young Earth. The Geological Timescale with its time periods pretending that anything could have lived on a sea of wet sediment, or that evolution needs millions of years to produce a simple trilobite variation, is scientifically preposterous and is going to have to go.

No Faith, once again you are simply misrepresenting everything. They did not say when God faked all the evidence and decided to con everyone.